Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenBatey
Have you read the judgement? The facts appeared to be fairly straightforward. The claimant produced an image which the defendant wanted to use. They couldn't agree terms, so the defendant went out to deliberately make a near copy. I've missed out a few stages, but this summary is more or less fair I think.
|
At last someone who's actually looked at the case instead of just regurgitating the hysterical headline (OK, a couple of others have as well - but this is a pretty good summary). A couple of bits missing from the above that helps reassure the paranoids:
1. The case was about commercial competition (one company that sought to profit by the other's "artistic" work). The tea caddies were being sold right next to the postcards/t-shirts!
2. The tea company obviously had some financial assets and so was worth pursuing for a few quid - pointless suing someone if they can't actually pay
3. The postcard company was prepared to spend many £10ks up front just to bring the case (it costs to sue!), risked losing probably up to £100k (there are never any guarantees) and will still have to pay some of their costs, despite winning (IIRC, it's all the costs leading up to actually getting into court - a not insubstantial amount)