by Mike Masnick
Tue, Aug 18th 2009 6:55pm
Michael Scott points us to an interesting -- if a bit technical legally speaking -- discussion over whether or not indemnifications exist for copyrighted materials. The discussion involves a homebuilder, who built some homes based on plans he bought from a third party. It later turned out that the plans were infringing copies, but the builder believed they were legit. So, in any common sense world, the liable party should be the guy who sold the infringing plans. But at least some lawyers and judges seem to believe that there is no indemnification in copyright law, and thus the copyright holder can basically sue whoever he wants up and down the chain. But, of course, not everyone sees it that way, and by the end of the post, it's pretty clear that the court in this particular case got it wrong. Blaming the builder, who had no clue that the plans were infringing, simply makes no sense.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- But Wait: Copyright Law Is So Screwed Up, Perhaps The Rolling Stones Are Right That Donald Trump Needed Their Permission
- How A Supreme Court Case On Cheerleader Costumes & Copyright Could Impact Prosthetic Hands And Much, Much More
- IsoHunt Settles The Last Of Its Lawsuits, Laughably Agrees To 'Pay' Recording Industry $66 Million
- John Oliver's Story On Campaign Music And Copyright Is... Wrong
- Amazon, Cable Industry Molest The Definition Of Copyright In Ongoing Scuff Up Over Cable Box Reform