“overheard” from negotiations: “We won’t admit any wrongdoing, and you won’t say anything bad about us. See, we’re both giving something up for this compromise!”
“Corporate fair use”* will probably be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership…
*use of a non-entity’s** intellectual property for any purpose
**non-person aka non-incorporated biological unit.
edit: just noticed who posted above… no implications of @Nonentity’s incorporated status are implied.
I’m beginning to suspect we’d all be a lot better off if gag orders (as terms of settlement) were made completely and entirely illegal.
I’d throw employee/former employee NDAs in there as well.
Wait, wait, wait…
Who is really the swiper, in some of these cases?
Over at David Apatoff’s website, Illustration Art, it’s shown that Congdon swiped those same images, too (polar bear, fox, reindeer above). Discussion of artistic ethics follows, as well as angry discussion in the forums about what is “transformative” and what is not…
http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/search?q=cody+foster
If you ask me, I’m not really feeling too bad for her.
edit: Whoops, meant Congdon.
Umm, Captain Copyright™ told me all about how copyright infringement was basically the worst except maybe Hitler, and cost America Eleventy-Billion dollars a year! How is $650 fair?
What was especially galling about the settlement offer was that Cody Foster & Co would admit to no wrong doing, whereas the alleged victim would have to admit to defaming Cody Foster & Co and accept a gag order prohibiting her from explaining the settlement, so it would look like Cody Foster & Co won on all counts rather than the other way round.
I was just wondering what the corporations would have against me, personally… or if my intellectual property was just that tempting.
Way to take a bad situation and make it worse, art thieves.
I can only hope theres an army of slavering lawyers waiting in the wings for these jagoffs.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
