In a famous case named Satava, the Court reviewed a claim that one sculptor’s jellyfish statue was copied from that of another. Both jellyfish were extremely life-like and technically accurate depictions of the sea creature. The Court denied the claim. It’s reasoning was that if you are creating something that is a technical recreation of an animal in nature, there are only a few ways to do so, and multiple recreations will almost by definition be substantially similar because they are accurately rendered from a common source. Also, the Court did not want to give the artist claiming infringement a monopoly on all life-like jellyfish statues, which may have been the case had it ruled that nobody else could create life-like renderings of jellyfish.
One fact that influenced the court was the medium involved. Clearly, there are fewer ways to depict a life-like jellyfish in statue form than there would be had it been a painting or work of graphic art. And the more fanciful and stylish the artwork, the less likely the Court will be to limit protection. In the below submission, one artist feels that a second has misappropriated her owl. Is the artsy owl so fanciful and unique that copying is afoot, or are the similarities a result of both being accurate renditions of owls in nature?
Recently a friend of mine told me that she saw one of my owl designs printed on a women’s t-shirt in one of UK’s clothing store NEW LOOK . though i never sold that design to them or gave them permission to use it for there clothing.
I also noticed that they added a crown on top of the design and also added some messy blobs of color into the image. but you can clearly tell its one of my designs.
here is a link of the Iain Macarthur owl design that i did in 2009 :
and here’s the link of the design that new look have taken and changed:
If you have any questions or comments about the issue above. please feel free to email to : firstname.lastname@example.org