Artist sued by copycat to overturn copyright.

[Alareth]

John T. Unger is an artist who makes industrial sculpture such as firepits.

A company that is making copies of his work has sued him to overturn his copyrights. It appears to be an attempt to make him run out of money to defend himself in court so that a default judgment will strip his copyrights away.

More information here http://www.johntunger.com/legal-defense-fund.html

 

[AWPrime]

Nasty....

 

[MikeMangum]

That's where sanctions against the lawyer become useful. A lawyer who brings a suit like this to court should be disbarred.

 

[MarekM]

That's where sanctions against the lawyer become useful. A lawyer who brings a suit like this to court should be disbarred.

That's a little bit of an overreaction, isn't it? It seems like a legitimate question of law and fact to me. And if the defendant wins, he can always countersue for lost profits, damages, etc. At first glance, it seemed more like the artist is taking advantage of the situation to sell more of his products.

 

[commandlinegamer]

WTH? Did the world just turn inside out? I knew copyright law was messed up but this is freaking awesome crazy.

 

[KingMerv00]

WTH? Did the world just turn inside out? I knew copyright law was messed up but this is freaking awesome crazy.

Meh. Call me a skeptic, but I don't automatically trust a defendant to describe his lawsuit accurately. I've read far too many cases that seem crazy at first glance but are actually pretty complex on further study.

 

[MarekM]

Meh. Call me a skeptic, but I don't automatically trust a defendant to describe his lawsuit accurately. I've read far too many cases that seem crazy at first glance but are actually pretty complex on further study.

Conveniently, he provides a copy of the complaint, so we can see at least part of the other side of the story. Again, it seems like a legitimate action and I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

 

[geni]

Under US law you can't copyright a useful article. A couple of those firebowls look pretty boarderline.

 

[KingMerv00]

Meh. Call me a skeptic, but I don't automatically trust a defendant to describe his lawsuit accurately. I've read far too many cases that seem crazy at first glance but are actually pretty complex on further study.

Conveniently, he provides a copy of the complaint, so we can see at least part of the other side of the story. Again, it seems like a legitimate action and I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Upon further study, I dub this case "more complex than suggested by the defendant". I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. If you can't trust an interested party, who can you trust?

 

[drkitten]

Conveniently, he provides a copy of the complaint, so we can see at least part of the other side of the story. Again, it seems like a legitimate action and I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Doesn't seem legitimate to me (having read the complaint).

Unger claims that his copyrights are being violated. FirePitArt claims that they're not. Unger contacts FirePitArt's customer and warns them of impending lawsuit. Customer ceases doing business with FirePitArt.

Nothing "improper" about that; the existence of the lawsuit is a matter of public record. Artful Home can look at the paperwork themselves and see whether or not they want to continue dealing with FirePitArt and risk having their entire line impounded for copyright violation.

No case to answer. Were I the judge, there would be a "show cause" order to FirePitArt's attorneys in the morning post.

 

[drkitten]

Under US law you can't copyright a useful article. A couple of those firebowls look pretty boarderline.

You can copyright the design of a useful article. E.g., why make it in that particular color?

 

[calebprime]

Conveniently, he provides a copy of the complaint, so we can see at least part of the other side of the story. Again, it seems like a legitimate action and I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

I agree that things are often not what they seem at first glance, but, supposing

the story is essentially as Unger has stated it--that he was first with these kind

of designs, and they were copied by this other company, and that he did have valid copyrights.

Ought Unger to win, as a matter of law, then? Or can you think of reasons why he ought not to?

 

[tesscaline]

Conveniently, he provides a copy of the complaint, so we can see at least part of the other side of the story. Again, it seems like a legitimate action and I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Some of it seems legitimate, some of it doesn't. I am curious to see where it goes though.

 

[MarekM]

Doesn't seem legitimate to me (having read the complaint).

Unger claims that his copyrights are being violated. FirePitArt claims that they're not. Unger contacts FirePitArt's customer and warns them of impending lawsuit. Customer ceases doing business with FirePitArt.

Nothing "improper" about that; the existence of the lawsuit is a matter of public record. Artful Home can look at the paperwork themselves and see whether or not they want to continue dealing with FirePitArt and risk having their entire line impounded for copyright violation.

No case to answer. Were I the judge, there would be a "show cause" order to FirePitArt's attorneys in the morning post.

I agree. That element (intentional interference with business relations) doesn't seem to be a strong case. While it still technically is a cause of action, this appears to be a situation where a competitor is competing for business. This type of interference, I believe, is usually allowed.

The crux of the complaint though, deals with seeking declaratory judgment. What do you find to be illegitimate about that?

 

[drkitten]

I agree that things are often not what they seem at first glance, but, supposing

the story is essentially as Unger has stated it--that he was first with these kind

of designs, and they were copied by this other company, and that he did have valid copyrights.

Ought Unger to win, as a matter of law, then? Or can you think of reasons why he ought not to?

How broad are the copyrights? Geni is right in that copyrights for useful items (such as firepits) are usually interpreted extremely narrowly; simply moving a wire from the top of a schematic diagram to the bottom has been interpreted as creating a new diagram that doesn't violate copyright. If FirePitArt.com produces things that are different enough, then they won't violate copyright, even if they stole the idea of making fire pits and selling them as "art."

 

[drkitten]

I agree. That element (intentional interference with business relations) doesn't seem to be a strong case. While it still technically is a cause of action, this appears to be a situation where a competitor is competing for business. This type of interference, I believe, is usually allowed.

The crux of the complaint though, deals with seeking declaratory judgment. What do you find to be illegitimate about that?

Nothing, particularly, although I find the idea of seeking declaratory judgment both for the fact that Unger has no copyrights and for the idea that FirePitArt didn't violate those copyrights a matter for concern. While it's standard procedure in legal matters to argue for every available out, this suggests a certain lack of clarity in the theory of the case.

But more to the point, the only point to the "declaratory judgment" is to prevent Unger from "continu[ing] to damage" FirePitArt, something that would happen automatically if Unger lost his suit. So I disagree. The crux of the complaint is to put Unger on the hook for attorneys fees and lost revenue. (In fact, he's dragging in a Consumer Protection act to make it 3x lost revenue.) So it looks to me like a classic "deep pockets" defense -- "settle with us or we'll bankrupt you even if you win."

 

[geni]

You can copyright the design of a useful article. E.g., why make it in that particular color?

Not universaly. For example you couldn't copyright a pink car or T-shirt. For something related to a useful article to be copyrightable it has to be unrelated to it's function.

 

[MarekM]

Nothing, particularly, although I find the idea of seeking declaratory judgment both for the fact that Unger has no copyrights and for the idea that FirePitArt didn't violate those copyrights a matter for concern. While it's standard procedure in legal matters to argue for every available out, this suggests a certain lack of clarity in the theory of the case.

But more to the point, the only point to the "declaratory judgment" is to prevent Unger from "continu[ing] to damage" FirePitArt, something that would happen automatically if Unger lost his suit. So I disagree. The crux of the complaint is to put Unger on the hook for attorneys fees and lost revenue. (In fact, he's dragging in a Consumer Protection act to make it 3x lost revenue.) So it looks to me like a classic "deep pockets" defense -- "settle with us or we'll bankrupt you even if you win."

As far as I understand, attorneys will bring up the most important elements of a complaint first. Declaratory judgment is the first relief sought. While it's impossible to know the true motives of the plaintiffs, I can't imagine that they reasonably believe they will recover much in regards to the CPA and alleged interference. Courts are generally not willing to make up somewhat arbitrary awards in situations like these. Additionally, while there's almost zero chance of recovering punitive damages or attorney's fees, they ask for them anyway.

We might just have different views, but it seems to me that the plaintiffs just want to keep selling these fire pits without future legal concerns.

 

[cwalner]

This looks to me like Unger would have had a case until he decided to hang himself.

Looking at Unger's website and FirePitArts (FPA) website a few of the models do appear to be nearly identical in design, so depending upon the specifics of Unger's copyright he would have a case - Had he actually filed one.

Here is the problem, at least according the complaint linked to. Instead of filing a suit himself, Unger had his lawyer send a threatening letter to FPA. This is good so far. However, instead of allowing the issue to resolve legally, according to FPA, Unger went to one of thier customers, alleged copyright violations (that he had not filed a complaint in court for yet) and convinced them to suspend business with FPA. To me this would be a no-no and legally actionable.

Therefore, while FPA may very well have violated his copyright, Unger seems to have also defamed FPA, costing them business, which is what thier suit is about.

As KingMerv said, a bit more complex than at first glance.

 

[LostAngeles]

I wonder if the contact the complaint is talking about is the one Unger references where another artist thought that Wittrig was Unger.