The Supreme Court refused to grant cert for the “oh the places you’ll boldly go” case.
In my view the 9th circuit court of appeals got it right. The work appears to take two properties the author does not own and created an unauthorized derivative work of both. In doing so it’s creating a product that usurps the market for both properties, doesn’t appear to be particularly transformative (inventive sure, imaginative sure, but transformative? The pictures are near carbon copies of the dr Seuss books other than the derivative works of Star Trek) and it’s obviously commercial…
Anyone who creates original content should want property protected. Not just to protect the property itself, but so there’s a level playing field between small creators. If bob creates a new IP and has to compete with Jane is unlawfully piggybacking on a billion dollar IP, then it’s clear that bob is going to have to work way harder than Jane to reach the same level of success. Meanwhile, Tim who is a creator of middling success may face sufficient usurption of the market for his work that instead of being able to sustain himself from his work he needs to keep working a day job because of all the copycats using his property.
I’m amenable to the idea that there needs to be more limited restrictions on intellectual property than exist such as having it lapse within a creators lifetime, but I’m not for throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In my view the 9th circuit court of appeals got it right. The work appears to take two properties the author does not own and created an unauthorized derivative work of both. In doing so it’s creating a product that usurps the market for both properties, doesn’t appear to be particularly transformative (inventive sure, imaginative sure, but transformative? The pictures are near carbon copies of the dr Seuss books other than the derivative works of Star Trek) and it’s obviously commercial…
Anyone who creates original content should want property protected. Not just to protect the property itself, but so there’s a level playing field between small creators. If bob creates a new IP and has to compete with Jane is unlawfully piggybacking on a billion dollar IP, then it’s clear that bob is going to have to work way harder than Jane to reach the same level of success. Meanwhile, Tim who is a creator of middling success may face sufficient usurption of the market for his work that instead of being able to sustain himself from his work he needs to keep working a day job because of all the copycats using his property.
I’m amenable to the idea that there needs to be more limited restrictions on intellectual property than exist such as having it lapse within a creators lifetime, but I’m not for throwing the baby out with the bath water.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0