teelie said:
In both cases (Capt Marvel and Bratz) it could be argued they were stealing a concept from the competition that was identical enough to confuse consumers. Although from what I know of the Bratz suit, it was a former Mattel employee who went and created a new line of toys while they supposedly developed Bratz whilst working for Mattel.
Well, yeah, the 9th Circuit handled the employment agreement thing too, but I skipped over that part of the opinion. If Carter Bryant gave Mattel the designs by contract, then that's his problem; but Mattel did claim infringement as well, and if Mattel had been able to successfully do that then it would have been (as goofy as it sounds)
everybody's problem.
Regarding Detective v. Fawcett--
Learned Hand said:
The evidence does much more than show that this finding was not "clearly erroneous"; it leaves no possible doubt that the copying was deliberate; indeed it takes scarcely more than a glance at corresponding "strips" of "Superman" and "Captain Marvel" to assure the observer that the plagiarism was deliberate and unabashed.
Except, you know, obviously it isn't. Afaik, the same reasonable person standard existed back then--and a reasonable person would have to be
high to a confuse blue-and-red solar-powered alien with red-and-white magic-powered street urchin.
Fun fact: Superman actually ripped off Marvel in many (if equally innocuous) ways--Lex Luthor became a bald super-scientist after Sivana was introduced; Superboy is a reinventing of Captain Marvel Jr; Superman only flew after Billy Batson did it first.
But my main point is, the SDNY and 2d Circuit of 1951 are probably the only courts in the world that would be capable of confusing the Jedi and Bene Gesserit, or Wookies and whatever the hell
that bushbaby monstrosity was.
I absolutely hate the idea that your creation is owned by your employer if you create it while employed with them although I can see their side if company time/material/resources were used to create it. I just don't buy into the concept that merely being employed grants your employer all rights to your creations.
Well, to my understanding it depends on the contract and the situation in which the creation was made. But no one's absolutely forcing one to divulge their ideas to their employer--the only sanction for keeping mum is the possibility of being reprimanded for lack of productivity. If creators want to keep the rights to their creations, maybe they ought not create them in a work-for-hire context. Like I said, though, in the specific Bratz case I skipped that bit, because I wasn't interested in the terms of Bryant's employment, only in how the 9th Circuit viewed the substantial similarity issue.
I think Herbert would have had trouble getting a dime.
Maybe it was just that Wanda and Pietro had been established as twins before Lucas decided to do the same with Luke and Leia.
)
But Mattel being able to get a court to place the entire Bratz line in a constructive trust even if they owned a small part of the original design work--which is what the district court judge did, and erred in doing so--would still be everybody's problem.)
