Hacker News Reader

But that's the point: It does seem like there is an intent to deceive. From my understanding of the relevant facts, the copycat photo is meant to be displayed on merchandise right next to those that use the official one, and it seems unlikely a lot of people will be able to tell that it isn't just a cropping.

View on HN

Paragraph 71 of the ruling explicitly states that the claim of unfair trade competition was not considered: "Whether or not consumers confuse the products of the parties (or their licensees) is not the issue."

I think you're confusing the photo with the products. Perhaps the products are deceptive, but this case is about a unique photographic execution being a violation of copyright. Not a label infringing trademark.

I think the judge was confusing them too. He let the 'up-to-no-damn-goodness' (as my old law professor would say) of the defendant prejudice his judgment on the copyright issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com