Pattern copyright

[menty666]

https://consumerist.com/2017/03/22/s...ing-furniture/

It could wind up being really bad. Prior art may be helpful here, but say someone wants to claim a custom zanfirico cane pattern or a particular color combination used in wigwags. It might wind up with legal protection.

[PyroChixRock]

thanks for posting this. I'm not sure what to think about it.

[Cerberus]

I saw an article about this posted at the gym where my daughter goes. I recall thinking "gimme a break, copyright a pattern?". How much does a competitor need to change a pattern to be considered unique? That's the slippery slope that Justice Breyer speaks of.
As far as individuals copyrighting common patterns like wigwags, copyright preotaction is only as strong as the owner can afford to protect, like patents. The example of a glassblower copyrighting a wigwag: the artist would need to litigate every person who advertises a wig wag on any piece of glass in order to protect the copyright. I find that difficult to imagine as successful in reality. On the other and Nike litigating Under Armor for design c/r infringement, for sure. I am the last person to believe in Always or Never but I honestly don't see this as applicable to individuals or even small companies, this is for the Big Dogs to fight each other. There was recent situation with Roor suing some smoke shops in New Jersey(?) for carrying import glass with Roor logos. It's a statement but nowhere close to a solution.
I disagree with the SCOTUS decision, but thats just my opinion, I think Breyer is correct.

[menty666]

It doesn't necessarily take full out litigation to do damage. Over in the bead world, folks routinely see their listings vanish or their shops temporarily barred on Etsy when someone like Pandora sends a C&D to the owner and Etsy over simply using the word Pandora in the search terms.

Now imagine they copyright their particular dot stack pattern they use on a bead, if someone else tries doing it, they can simply send the letter and be disruptive. Now maybe you've got the money to fight them, maybe you don't. But you're still stuck dealing with it while their sales go on.

That's where the problem lies, the cost of fighting with folks that *can* afford the lawyers.

[brads]

It doesn't necessarily take full out litigation to do damage. Over in the bead world, folks routinely see their listings vanish or their shops temporarily barred on Etsy when someone like Pandora sends a C&D to the owner and Etsy over simply using the word Pandora in the search terms.

Now imagine they copyright their particular dot stack pattern they use on a bead, if someone else tries doing it, they can simply send the letter and be disruptive. Now maybe you've got the money to fight them, maybe you don't. But you're still stuck dealing with it while their sales go on.

That's where the problem lies, the cost of fighting with folks that *can* afford the lawyers.

Your Pandora example is a completely different animal than the copyright issue brought before the SCOTUS. So is the example that Cerberus gave regarding Roor. Both of those are trademark issues focused on the respective company names. They aren't copyright complaints (I think). But the points that were made about the cost of battling over copyrights were valid. Lawyers aren't cheap, so anyone suing had better have deep pockets, even if they have a slam-dunk case. Especially if the case is against Joe Blow who has no money to pay any damages the court might assess.

The biggest issue I see is what was mentioned regarding duration in the Supreme Court opinions. Thanks to Disney, Sonny Bono, and a multitude of corrupt politicians, copyrights can now extend for somewhere around a full century. Whereas patent protection for designs filed for after May 13, 2015 is limited to 15 years. So the observation that Cerberus made about this being the realm where the big dogs will be fighting makes lots of sense. And you can bet your ass that the big dogs will now be trying to copyright anything they can get away with instead of going for a design patent.

Yeah, there will probably be a few assholes who try to harass small businesses with this crap. But it is unlikely to be very cost effective for them to do it. So in the end, I doubt it will affect us very much, if at all.

[Jackass Glass]

this wont have any bearing on the glass industry, and in the end it wont matter to furniture or clothing either... you couldnt find a fuck to give in alllllll of india or china... where the knockoffs will come from.