Let’s start with a videogame, shall we?
Many of you have already heard about League of Legends, a MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) extremely famous in the videogame world. A lot of tournaments based on this game are organised each year, and its reputation spans America. And who says fame, says copyright infringement.
A Chinese video game studio is currently accused of making a very similar version of League of Legends!
From the characters to the map, everything is very similar! A report took an example of one of the most prominent figure of the game, the young girl “Annie”. And as you see below, well, it seems very clear doesn’t it?
The owner of League of Legends, Riot Games, has sued the Chinese company in the federal court in Los Angeles for copyright and trademark infringement. And soon we will see how this battle is going to end!
Forever 21, again and again!
Forever 21 is once again being sued by Mara Hoffman for copying one of her original prints. According to it’s complaint, Forever 21 infringed her copyright-protected “Leaf” fabric print.
The complaint is as follow: according to Mara Hoffman, Forever 21 ““infringed [its] copyright by manufacturing, importing, displaying, distributing, selling, offering for sale, promoting and advertising women’s swimwear which exploit, use or otherwise incorporate a design unlawfully taken from Mara Hoffman’s copyrighted work.”
And apparently, it’s not the first time! Mara Hoffman said that she has been the target of Forever 21 in the past: in 2012 and in 2013.
She is seeking for monetary damages in connection with the alleged copyright infringement.
The case: Mara Hoffman, Inc. v. Forever 21, Inc., 1:17-cv-05393 (SDNY).
“Reproduction” of an original work
A lawsuit filed in New York this week has at heart a quite complicated question: how much can you conserve an artwork before it becomes something entirely different?
Cady Noland claims that a conservator has been paid to repair her sculpture Log Cabin without consulting her. By “repair”, she claims that it was way beyond the bounds of normal conservation.
According to her, this reparation is so different from the original work that it became a copy of her work. For her, the conservator destroyed the original work and created an unauthorized reproduction. According to the law, this is copyright infringement – yes, again!
Post a Comment