I guess printing a correct headline of “sued for copyright infringement “ isn’t click baity enough. Because that’s all it is. Dbrand is lucky they haven’t been sued by the board manufacturers for creating an unlicensed derivative work (which is what the case art is, just as the photo of a sculpture, even stylized, has been deemed derivative - especially when the reproduction is intended to represent the original).
wtf stupid take is this? I bet you are so brilliant, so smart, that you have successfully managed to point out a hole that dbrand's lawyers have completely missed! I'm sure the investors totally had absolutely zero concerns about that and never mandated some form of investigation... I'm sure dbrand has taken no action at any point to verify that their business dealings do not go afowl of the law. Thank GOD for brilliant people like you, showing the companies the way.
If only these multinational brands had consulted this random guy about copyright law instead of trusting their lawyers. Idiots are muckin about blind.
Dbrand is lucky they haven’t been sued by the board manufacturers for creating an unlicensed derivative work (which is what the case art is, just as the photo of a sculpture, even stylized, has been deemed derivative - especially when the reproduction is intended to represent the original).
I think "lucky" is an overstatement but this is an interesting point and could be the knockoff company's defense ie:
we couldn't have infringed their IP because they don't own the IP
But I think this line of defense would open both case makers up to a suit from the phone manufacturers. Dbrand is well familiar with IP issues with hardware OEMs though so I don't know...
I guess printing a correct headline of “sued for copyright infringement “ isn’t click baity enough. Because that’s all it is. Dbrand is lucky they haven’t been sued by the board manufacturers for creating an unlicensed derivative work (which is what the case art is, just as the photo of a sculpture, even stylized, has been deemed derivative - especially when the reproduction is intended to represent the original).
wtf stupid take is this? I bet you are so brilliant, so smart, that you have successfully managed to point out a hole that dbrand's lawyers have completely missed! I'm sure the investors totally had absolutely zero concerns about that and never mandated some form of investigation... I'm sure dbrand has taken no action at any point to verify that their business dealings do not go afowl of the law. Thank GOD for brilliant people like you, showing the companies the way.
If only these multinational brands had consulted this random guy about copyright law instead of trusting their lawyers. Idiots are muckin about blind.
I think "lucky" is an overstatement but this is an interesting point and could be the knockoff company's defense ie:
But I think this line of defense would open both case makers up to a suit from the phone manufacturers. Dbrand is well familiar with IP issues with hardware OEMs though so I don't know...