# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it's an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright - how it's handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons
_

Photograph: Art Rogers - 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons - 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group)

Case

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rogers' photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rogers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

Outcome

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a "typical person" would be able to recognize the copy. Koon's defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement - without copying Rogers' work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rogers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another's work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey
_

Photograph: Mannie Garcia - 2006 (via The New York Times); Poster: Shephard Fairey - 2008 (via Wikipedia)

Case

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama's first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama's campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia - with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey's work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn't reduce the value of the original photograph.

Outcome

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Significance

Though there wasn't a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It's unlikely that Garcia's work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey's poster. Garcia himself stated he was "so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had," but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it's originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work - but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince
_

Photograph: Patrick Cariou - 2000; Adaptation: Richard Prince - 2008 (both via artnet)

Case

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist - one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn't fair use, but copyright infringement.

Outcome

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou's photographs weren't significant enough to constitute a change in meaning - fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

Significance

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking "who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use" when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don't be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

-

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince's work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic.

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation
_

Illustrations: Modern Dog - 2008; T-shirt: Target (both via Business Insider)

Case

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

Outcome

TBD. There hasn't been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

Significance

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists - what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it's turning into a very extreme situation for them. We'll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you're going up against - if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury
_

Case

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby - it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was "a joke". Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice 'fessed to sampling the work.

Outcome

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

Significance

There's really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don't use other people's creative work!). But I couldn't resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 famous copyright infringement cases (what you can learn)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it's an inescapable issue. Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright - how it's handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hollyoaks' pre-watershed train death scene breached rules - Ofcom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Channel 4 soap Hollyoaks broke the rules when it broadcast a "violent and shocking" scene where a main character was killed by a speeding train, the media watchdog has found. Ofcom issued a stern warning to broadcasters about airing violence before the watershed and announced that it will commission research into viewers' attitudes towards on-screen violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A City banker has won a gender discrimination case after alleging she was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds less than a male colleague and was the victim of a drunken prank that included leaving a witch's hat on her desk.

Stacey Macken sued the London office of BNP Paribas for £4m on the basis of unequal pay, claiming she was discriminated against due to her gender and paid significantly less than a male co-worker with the same job title. She also claimed she faced harassment.

Macken was recruited on an annual salary of £120,000. But just months later, a male colleague was hired under the same job title for £160,000. That same co-worker took home about £237,000 in bonuses over a five-year period, seven times more than the combined £33,000 offered to Macken.

An employment tribunal in London heard that Macken was often rudely dismissed by one of her bosses, who would brush off her questions by saying "not now Stacey". The phrase was used so frequently that her colleagues started to use the phrase sarcastically.

Another boss subjected Macken to crude stories, including one about a friend who took part in sexual role play with his wife that involved fantasies about sex workers. The same senior banker would also answer the phone to friends by saying "hey sexy", or "hey fuckface".

Macken told colleagues she was uncomfortable working with her male colleagues shortly after joining the French-owned bank in 2013, when they left a Halloween-style black witch's hat on her desk after a drinking session.

Georgina Chapman, a former personal assistant to one of Macken's bosses, said: "I suspected it was one of the drunk team members, because they were the only people in that area of the office the evening before, which, combined with their drunkenness, made them most likely to have done it.

"Stacey was visibly upset and confided in me that she felt really uncomfortable working with those male colleagues, knowing that one of them had purposefully gone out of their way to leave a witch's hat on her desk."

The tribunal heard that communication broke down between Macken and senior management shortly after she filed a grievance to BNP Paribas over her pay and claimed she was subject to hostile performance reviews.

She received no bonus in 2017, when her bosses noted: "Stacey's inability to accept constructive feedback ... has led to a cascade of comments, accusations and recriminations which has led to the breakdown of her relationship with the management of the bank."

Her male colleague received £70,000 in bonuses that year.

An employment tribunal judge upheld her complaints over unequal pay and discrimination, but dismissed the harassment claims. It is not yet clear how much she may receive in compensation from BNP Paribas, where she is still employed.

BNP Paribas declined to comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Female banker wins gender bias case after witch's hat left on desk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A City banker has won a gender discrimination case after alleging she was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds less than a male colleague and was the victim of a drunken prank that included leaving a witch's hat on her desk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taiwo v Olaigbe and another & Onu v Akwiwu and another

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The problem is that " My Name Is," Em's hit song, conjured up such delightful images as stapling a pedophile teacher's nuts to a stack of papers and inserting one's cock into a gentlemen's club's tip cup.

Then Came the Censors:

If Eminem were to become the poster child that years of criminal activity had undoubtedly prepared him to be, he needed to clean up his act. Thus, his label forced him to record an almost completely new song. And voila! Unlike the rape-obsessed psychopath his lyrics once evoked, the new Slim had turned into someone who was simply annoying, a meddling juvenile delinquent.

For instance, the lyrics "I don't give a fuck, God sent me to piss the world off" became "I don't give a damn, Dre sent me to tick the world off." While the former is scarily reminiscent of an angry school shooter, the latter seems to instead suggest "I, a God-fearing individual that believes 'tick off' is totally legitimate slang, am upset."

Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images "Dear world, prepare to be ticked off.

Sincerely, Marshall Mathers, age (2)7"

In addition, where he previously rapped about his desire to murder his father, the new Eminem wonders if Mr. Mathers "bought a porno mag and seen my ad," evoking both a less violent and a far more sexually communicative relationship with his dad. And if you're wondering, dear reader, his old man did buy that magazine, and he did see his ad. And he felt very proud.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Cases of Censorship That Totally Changed the Message

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The problem is that " My Name Is," Em's hit song, conjured up such delightful images as stapling a pedophile teacher's nuts to a stack of papers and inserting one's cock into a gentlemen's club's tip cup.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief History of Shia LaBeouf Copying the Work of Others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lawsuits often stem from copyright infringement, plagiarism, or inaccurate details surrounding true events. In some cases, a lawsuit is wrapped up quickly, but there are several famous copyright cases where infringements led to legal action.

Some of the biggest copyright infringement cases have been between some of the most well-known companies in the world, including the copyright court cases listed below.
Related:?What is considered fair dealing in UK copyright law?
1. Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

Perhaps the most famous case of copyright infringement is that of Battlestar Galactica, who apparently 'borrowed' a little too much from Star Wars.

Galactica was produced in the wake of the success of the 1977 film Star Wars. And sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle, starring on a guest panel in This Week in Teck (episode 223), explains that 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studios (the studio behind Battlestar Galactica) for copyright infringement, claiming that it had stolen 34 distinct ideas from Star Wars. Among them was a character named Skyler, a tad too close to Skywalker, and the possibility of airing with the title "Star Worlds".

Universal Studios didn't take this news lightly. "I agreed not to use certain effects including laser streaks from our guns," said Galactica creator Glen Larson, who supposedly met producer Gary Kurtz to figure things out. "I always consider [the case] very unfair because we had met...and they were in agreement not to take any action."

Furthermore, they promptly countersued, claiming Star Wars had stolen ideas from the 1972 film Silent Running (the robot drones) and the Buck Rogers serials of the 1940s," said Pournelle. He goes on to say that after Fox was sued, he was paid $20,000 by Universal to show that Battlestar Gallactica and Star Wars were made from two different cloths. About Fildena http://valleyofthesunpharmacy.com/fildena/

In the end the case was decided in favour of Galactica two years later. Unfortunately, however, the original Battlestar Galactica had been cancelled and cinemas were looking forward to seeing The Empire Strikes Back.

2. Apple vs Microsoft

The battle between these tech giants started with a simple question: who invented the graphical user interface (GUI) The company that controls the interface of the next major operating system will have the ability to set the standards for application software, so it's unsurprising that Apple tried to stop Windows from becoming a major operating system.

It seemed that although Microsoft helped develop Macintosh, Jean-Louis Gasse, who had taken over from Steve Jobs at the time, refused to allow Microsoft to use their software. Bill Gates pressed on nonetheless, deciding to add in features of its own to early prototypes of the Macintosh.

When Gasse noted the software, he was enraged. However, he didn't want a lawsuit, and ended up agreeing to license the Mac's visual displays. But Windows 2.0 turned out to be almost identical, and Gasse believed it to be a breach of contract, only having allowed their software to be used for 1.0 and not future versions.

So, without warning, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988. Apples case included 189 contested visual displays that violated its copyright. This led to a six-year long battle. Tramadol 50 mg online http://www.healthfirstpharmacy.net/tramadol.html

In 1989, the court ruled that 179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license. Furthermore, the other ten were not violations of Apples copyright due to the merger doctrine, where the ideaexpression divide limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the manifestation of that idea.

The copyright lawsuit was decided in Microsofts favour on August 24, 1993.

3. James Dyson vs Hoover

What has made Dyson so successful is the use of a bagless vacuum cleaner which uses two cyclones. One removes small particles while the other collects larger items. This is the patented technology that bitter rival Hoover infringed.

According to Dyson, before him, nobody in the field had thought to sell a bagless vacuum cleaner. However, Alberto Bertali, managing director of Hoover European Appliances Group, claimed that the Triple Vortex recirculated dusty air between three cyclones and did not filter it.

A counterclaim that the Dual Cyclone's technology was nothing that was not generally known within the industry," was dismissed by the High Court.

Unfortunately for them the High Court ruled that Hoover had intentionally copied the technology at the heart of Dyson's Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. Dyson said: Their claims that the Triple Vortex is different were shown to be completely false. Hoover showed no interest in the technology when we were looking for backers. Then they rubbished it when we brought out the bagless cleaner, insisting that bags are best. Finally they came out with a blatant copy."

But Dyson failed to stop Hoover using the Vortex trademark on its bagless cleaners.

4. Gucci vs Guess

In 2009 Gucci sued Guess for infringing on five Gucci trademarks, including the use of similar logos. This is perhaps unsurprising given that Guess has been subject to 12 copyright complaints over the last ten years. But they have successfully managed to resolve all previous situations almost immediately... until they messed with Gucci.

Guess used many of Gucci's distinctive marks, including a green and red stripe used on handbags, the repeating, inverted GG pattern, and the company's use of brown and beige colours, mostly used in conjunction with diamond shape patterns.

Of course, Gucci came out on top, but not in the way they had hoped for. Initially asking for $221m in damages, the judge told Gucci they were only entitled to an accounting of profits and limited the damages. In the end, Gucci only received $4.7m.

Guess was also barred from using most of their designs ever again, primarily the Quattro G patterns in brown and beige colours and the CRG stripe.

What went wrong Gucci's defence.

The judge concluded that Over the years, Gucci has sent out hundreds of cease and desists letters to entities ranging from national companies such as Bebe, Juicy Couture, and Williams-Sonoma, all the way to small-time infringers, such as a counterfeiter working out of her Los Angeles apartment and a rabbi in New York, who they suspected might sell counterfeit Gucci products to benefit his synagogue. When it came to Guess, they waited because the company was facing budgetary concerns due to counterfeiters.

Furthermore, the company had failed to bring non-speculative evidence to court.

5. Apple vs Google

Apple is no stranger to court, especially when it comes to Google. After all, there are several companies that are making phones using Google's Android software. Steve Jobs repeatedly called the Android a "stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Apparently things got so heated between Apple and Google that former Google CEO (and current chairman) Eric Schmidt stepped down from his position on Apple's Board of Directors.

In 2010, Apple sued Samsung. Google had to step in and help Samsung patly due to a 'Mobile Application Distribution Agreement'. A Google lawyer revealed that the company agreed to provide partial or full indemnity with regard to four patents.

And in one of the highest-profile lawsuits in technology, Motorola sued Apple at the same time Samsung was taken to court. Motorola accused Apple of infringing several patents, which included how cellphones operated on a 3G network. On the other hand, Apple claimed that Motorola violated its patent to certain smartphone features.

The copyright case was dismissed in 2012, the year that Google acquired Motorola, on grounds that neither company had sufficient evidence. In fact, frustrated judges have thrown the Apple vs Motorola out of court three times, telling them to solve their problems between themselves.

Although Apple hasn't attacked Google, probably due to the fact that Google provides a variety of iOS software. Instead, the company chooses to go for the company selling Android devices, but it seem that the search giant is intent on defending Android.

In 2014, Apple and Google released a joint statement saying that they have agreed to settle all patent litigation between them and that they will also work together in some areas of patent reform .

6. A&M Records vs. Napster

For those who don't remember, Napster was a popular peer-to-peer file sharing network that launched in 1999. It had an amazingly large fan-base of music lovers who shared mp3s.

However, two years later the company was involved in a joint lawsuit filed by various record companies.

They didn't like the large-scale distribution of their music for free, and so sued the company for infringement on their intellectual property. This is what makes this case one of the most famous copyright infringement cases in history.

The court ruled against Napster and the company was forced to shut down the site after making a public apology and paying $26m in damages. It was their lack of effort to reduce infringement, mixed with the fact that the company financially benefitted from it that set the decision in stone.
This article was originally published on 11 August 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawsuits often stem from copyright infringement, plagiarism, or inaccurate details surrounding true events. In some cases, a lawsuit is wrapped up quickly, but there are several famous copyright cases where infringements led to legal action. Some of the biggest copyright infringement cases have been between some of the most well-known companies in the world, including the copyright court cases listed below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NME Music News, Reviews, Videos, Galleries, Tickets and Blogs | NME.COM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Little Mix have responded to comparisons between their latest single 'Shout Out To My Ex' and US girlband G.R.L.'s 2014 hit 'Ugly Heart'.

Many fans noted the similarities between the two songs when Little Mix debuted 'Shout Out To My Ex' on The X Factor earlier this month. G.R.L. then stoked the controversy with a tweet saying "#ShoutOutToUglyHeart".

Asked about the supposed "copying" controversy during a Belgian radio interview, Little Mix's Jade Thirlwall said: "Every song is going to have a similar chord sequence, slightly similar lyrics and melodies. It happens all the time. It doesn't mean that they're not both incredible songs."

Thirlwall then added: "I think maybe because it was a girl band as well. I just think people like to have something negative to say."

Meanwhile, her bandmate Leigh-Anne Pinnock said that G.R.L.'s song sounds "a lot more country" than their own hit.

"I just think, stop trying to hop on the bandwagon," Perrie Edwards added, before Jesy Nelson said: "Stop trying to get publicity!"

Watch Little Mix discuss the similarities below, at around 2 minutes 20 seconds into the interview.

Little Mix's 'Shout Out To My Ex' notched up its second week at Number One in the UK on Friday (October 21). Their new album 'Glory Days' will follow on November 18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Little Mix respond to accusations of copying G.R.L. on 'Shout Out To My Ex' | NME

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Little Mix have responded to comparisons between their latest single 'Shout Out To My Ex' and US girlband G.R.L.'s 2014 hit 'Ugly Heart'. Many fans noted the similarities between the two songs when Little Mix debuted 'Shout Out To My Ex' on The X Factor earlier this month. G.R.L.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This table sets out the recent media law cases with links to the judgments and, where applicable, the Inforrm blog posts and comments on them. The judgments can be obtained by clicking on the links - which are, where available, to the invaluable British and Irish Legal and Information Institute ( Bailii) database. In the "Links" column we have inserted links to Inforrm case comments and articles about the cases and links to the useful case notes and comments provided on the other websites including those of barristers' chambers 1 Brick Court ("1BC") and 5 Raymond Buildings ("5RB"), the RPC Privacy Blog ("RPC") and the UK Human Rights Blog ("UKHR").

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This table sets out the recent media law cases with links to the judgments and, where applicable, the Inforrm blog posts and comments on them. The judgments can be obtained by clicking on the links - which are, where available, to the invaluable British and Irish Legal and Information Institute ( Bailii) database.