As an artist myself. She gave the ok to use the design for this woman’s bridal party. In order to profit from another artist’s designs; you have to purchase and/or get the rights to those designs. Which she did not do. There are copyright laws that she broke.
As an artist, the judgement was 100% correct. She stole the artwork, if she wanted to sell it she needs to pay the artist for a license to use the design to sell on shirts.
I love the judge's sarcasm and making the defendant believe the judge is on her side encouraging the defendant to continue digging herself into a hole...hahaha
I would not say it was a tricky situation: she was given permission within a set of parameters, and she breached the parameters in a way that makes her a thief.
That's true but most people use the term piracy to refer to unauthorized use of computer programs, books, music, and films. And use copyright infringement to refer to the unauthorized use of artistic works.
1) Woman was wrong for stealing her co-worker's design 2) They are dressed fine - why would you even bring that up - I have seen people in real court in shorts and tees - these women are covered and decent .
Zach, you obviously know NOTHING about intellectual rights……people will steal you all day long. Artist deserves every bit of the money and then some. You are way out of your depth on this.
When you draw something, unless you sign a contract that states otherwise, you automatically own the copyright to that drawing. This artist gave her permission for her coworker to use her art once, for her wedding. Not to start a business profiting off that art. As soon as someone asked about the t shirts, she should have explained that it was her coworker’s art and either asked her coworker what she’d charge to license her art, or put the artist and the other person in touch with each other.
She absolutely should not have used her design without permission. That is illegal. You would not take a graphic off the web without making sure you had a license so you already know that. If there had been an agreement, the artists would have only gotten a small share of the profit but she got it all because the defendant broke the law. Crime does not pay.
As an artist ,always insulting when people use the term “leisurely or for fun “ as if our talent just pop out and we actually have no commitment or any hours of work and practice behind every stroke ! Always not wanting to pay since it’s so easy to do ! Then do it yourself !
And stop with the, "not dressed appropriately for court!" As long as they're covering all the bits they're legally supposed to be covering, people can wear whatever clothing they happen to have on at the time! Some people don't have as many options as you do!
The woman is an opportunist who would steal candy from a baby with no remorse. She took advantage of the artist and the artists' goodwill gesture. If the shoe was on the other foot that crooked bride would want the artist locked up! Judge Perez saw straight through her act.
Even if the design was a "gift" which is clearly was not, I would have at least asked the artist about marketing the design, particualrly since I would profit so well from it. Very shady indeed.
No question, the design is the intellectual property of the artist. The colleague who was given permission to use it for her bridal party outfits, knew darn well that was the use implicit in the gift. Whether the artist had the desire or ability to produce other garments with the design is irrelevant. The colleague stole the intellectual property when she saw an opportunity to profit from it herself.
Its not the first time she's stolen from someone or done someone wrong, either. It's written on her face the evil that she has conjured up in her head. Congrats, Nicole.
Intellectual property is part of international law. When a person creates something, they automatically become its owner-this is an inherent right. Licensing occurs when an artist grants permission for someone else to sell a product featuring their work. For example, products with Disney characters are licensed; in these cases, the artist or company grants limited permission for specific uses. Once this period or purpose ends, the license expires as well. Intellectual property rights do not require a written or verbal agreement for ownership, as the creator is always the original owner. This only changes if the creator sells their rights, transferring ownership of the creation.
@shellymedley6795 Exactly, amazing example. There are sites like Pixabay that you can download and use for commercial purposes for free, but even in these situations the photographer still is the picture owner.
This is really a matter of decency. She was given the design for her bridal party. The least she could have done when orders started to come in was to discuss this with the one who actually made the design that got much interest and which resulted into a business idea. But she did not involve the artist and started thinking that now she ows the design and therefore can do anything with it. The artist was kind in the first place to share her the design to use for her special day. You may think this is a small matter, but for artists, it is. As i said, the artist was nice to her. Sometimes it is not even about the money. A simple acknowledgment goes a long way.
Using a design for a personal reason is a very different thing from SELLING a borrowed design online. Plus, people buying the t-shirts were probably under the impression the Defendant came up with the design. The work "she did"?!? She slapped the design on t-shirts. The DESIGN was what made the t-shirts sell. Also, just a side note, that design looks just like the Saved By the Bell logo😂.
That’s y a lot of these artists being sued now they gave them the song to sing but they not getting credit for writing the song that made them so famous
You are right. She should have asked permission to sell and they could have both profited. As far as the design, you are also correct, in my opinion, as an artist, the design was super basic. The build-up 2 the design had me, because I was expecting something super creative😢 The defendant could have simply created a free canva acct and created her own designs.
Even if the judge ruled against the complainant,the defendant selling her design was an immoral thing to do.She was literally profiting from the complainant's work.That is so wrong!!
How could anyone be so ratchet that you wouldn't offer her a cut of the profits. Couldn't you make a whole deal about this by making an agreement with her for even more designs?
As an artist, I wouldn't have accepted half the profits if I never agreed to have my design used by someone else for profit. I would sue for 100% of the profits and then sell my own design and keep 100% of the profits. Not split it 50/50 with someone else.
When some one buys a painting from an artist or even commissions a painting or gifted a painting they own just that. The design and image rights still belong to the creator. People always trying to steal artists intellectual property
As a artist, there's a thing called copyright, copying someone's art is piracy; never mind if you don't like, same goes for music etc. You cannot sell something that is not yours; would she do that to a famous brand, they would bankrupt her, how dare she?😱😱😱😱
The term piracy is usually used in reference to computer programs, books, music and films. When referring to artistic works, the more appropriate term is copyright infringement.
First off it’s the girl said here’s the design for you to use for your shirt that means a shirt for her bridal party not a shirt for her to sale and make profit off her design that’s wrong
The bride was deceitful - she should have disclosed the situation to the artist and allow her to take charge of the situation. She profited from the artist's work!!!
It is clear and without a doubt that you cannot use someone else's Intellectual property without the ARTISTS / producers permission. This was clearly given for a bridal shower. Period. The audaciousness of the T Shirt producer is mind blowing to me. If someone uses my art in anyway - other than what I authorized them to use - they are in the wrong.
Good thing the Judge knows more than you. And good thing those ladies don't give a ×××× what you think about their clothing choices. Your judgment is rooted in something very off-putting 🤔
She received the pattern under the mutual understanding it would be for her bridal party. That’s the sole reason it was given to her, they both knew that. Only when money was being discussed did she decide to run away with it.
I don’t understand why people think it’s ok to not pay artists. Artists are often taken advantage of and people steal their intellectual property and creations. It’s such icky behaviour. It’s so ridiculous how difficult it is for an artist to do what they are talented at as a full-time career. Most do it as a side quest.
The defendant is a thief and a scammer. She stole her design and profited off of it. They are dressed fine. There is nothing wrong with the way they are dressed. Smh.
She should had told her, others like her design and wanted to buy the tee shirts for there event. She saw she could make a profit and decided to steal it instead of letting the artist know there had been inquires how to get the design. Pay up it was stealing.
How disgusting. She does something nice for this lady and the lady turns around and uses it to benefit herself. It’s people like this that ruin everything for the rest of us. Nasty woman.
I'm an artist and she did steal intellectual property. To put this is a way that most people can understand, you can not go on the internet download an image that was created by someone else, print T-shirts and start selling them and start making a profit. You have to get consent from the artist to do it. It is the LAW. If you can't do it with a company's intellectual property, what makes you think that it is correct to do it to an individual person and never get their consent to use their work in that manner. If we as a people, respected what artists do more as a society, this wouldn't be an issue. It would be very clear for those who don't make art to understand that they have no rights to make a profit from someone else's work without entering into a contract that either gives permission for free use or lays out terms for the use of the design.
She knew it was for her shirt. She decided to sell it. Making her in the wrong. Getting a company to print on a shirt is easy. It's the design that made it sell.
It's basic IP theft, mate. That's why the judge was being sarcastic throughout, she had made her decision about 10 seconds in. Whether the thief had the incredible idea of putting it on a TShirt or how much she invested in setting up the business and the customers. The whole enterprise was built on theft.
The judge was wrong! I don’t see that she did anything wrong! She gave her the shirts as a gift to wear for her bridal party and nothing was brought up about what she can or can’t do afterwards! She only spoke up after she saw that the woman made some money using that designs that she didn’t even have a patent for it or sign her name on it! If I was that young lady, Miss Paris, I would hire a lawyer and go to a real court!! This judge was not correct, Zech! She did NOT tell her she couldn’t sell it! It was the artists fault for not specifying that! I hope she learned her lesson and next time, maybe sign her name on the logos/designs and make a contract!
Even if she paid her for the design to be used on her private party shirts, without a signed intellectual property agreement of ownership, she can Not legally resell that image in any form. Ive learned that as an artist after many of my works have been showing up on random websites and weird places. Its up to me if i sue but so far i havent found it necessary.
In no circumference she has the right to use the design commercially unless she acquire a licence for commercial uses from the artist. And she shoud have been thankful to the artist to let her use the design for her Bridal party without paying her. It cleary shows she is a con woman making profit of someone else IP. If she had good intention she would have discuss about making shirt using the design in the first place.
The artist was dressed appropriately, the women in skin tight dress while stealing from that artist , you would be correct. You shouldn’t even think you know anything about selling art….art belongs to the artist whether is a song, a painting or a poem. It belongs to the artist. Example your ridiculous opinion are you to decide to give away or sell
The defendant first said that she would love it for her bridal shower. That the plaintiff said VERBALLY, "Yes, Yu Can Use It For Your Bridal Shower". Sure in the email she said yu can use it, but she me meant for the shower! Not to have it altogether, steal wat she MADE OF DESIGN and make more shirts to get profit.
Yeah nah, I’m an artist and I sell my designs online. You can’t claim that putting it on a shirt is changing the game. The artist and this woman were discussing her bridal party. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to assume she was uaing it for her shirts. That’s what the woman asked for - to use it on her shirts for her bridal party. The artist probably didn’t think this woman was going to go on to make other shirts. The very least she could have done was asked permission. She for sure acted illegally. Go online and see what happens when you buy art from an artist. You have the right to display it, whether that’s on a wall or t-shirt. What you don’t have is the right to take that design and make a profit from it. The only way you have that right is if the artist agrees to hand over the rights.
See I wouldn’t even play devils advocate and argue that the defendant repurposed the design technically “altering” and that being a solid reason to steal intellectual property from someone. Take Nike’s logo and engrave it on a ring for mass production sales and they would definitely see you in court as well. Plaintiff should get in the habit of copyrighting if anything
Morally how does the woman live with herself when making money from someone else’s design that was given to her for a once off use for her bridal party only. Really her conscience should have had her pass the interest others had in the product onto the designer surely.
So Van Gogh painted the Sunflowers. He didn’t do it with the idea to put it on T-Shirts. Does that mean that I can use his painting and put it on T-Shirts to sell? I think not. She was kind enough to allow the grifter to use her design for HER bridal shower that doesn’t give her the right to profit off it.
Wether they the design's were on shirts, or capa or whatever item. People all over the world PAY for designs!!!! If you use a design that's not yours, its CAlled "STEALING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" yes, its a thing. She the complainant is absolutely right!!! The defendant should have reached out to either include her in the business prospect or to ask her to buy her design for a price. And then use it for her business.... Where I'm from, designs for outfits wears cost few thousand bucks and if sold by a reputable brand ,designers can be paid good money for thier designs.
As the mother of an artist, she had no right to use that artwork. She was permitted to use the artwork for one single limited purpose only. As for your comment on the litigate attire, what does that have to do with the case? You sound like a petty 13 year old girl. Secondly, stealing an artists intellectual property is no different than stealing her physical property. Whether she chooses to draw for herself or for profit, it is her decision.
As an artist myself. She gave the ok to use the design for this woman’s bridal party. In order to profit from another artist’s designs; you have to purchase and/or get the rights to those designs. Which she did not do. There are copyright laws that she broke.
Exactly….the entitlement of the defendant is mind boggling
Stealing art is stealing art no matter what she put it on.
As an artist, the judgement was 100% correct. She stole the artwork, if she wanted to sell it she needs to pay the artist for a license to use the design to sell on shirts.
I love the judge's sarcasm and making the defendant believe the judge is on her side encouraging the defendant to continue digging herself into a hole...hahaha
RIGHTTTTTTTT
Defendant walked right into the trap
Totally 😂
Right just keep digging
She didn't see it coming at the end. lol
She owes the artist 2600.00 period for going beyond the bridal party
And has orders for more.
I would not say it was a tricky situation: she was given permission within a set of parameters, and she breached the parameters in a way that makes her a thief.
Exactly
The nerve of her selling the artists design on line and not letting the artist know is really bad. She’s a thief
Happens all the time.
What this defendant did is called PIRACY!
That's true but most people use the term piracy to refer to unauthorized use of computer programs, books, music, and films. And use copyright infringement to refer to the unauthorized use of artistic works.
No remorse for the theft.
She blabbered alot to avoid talking about something she stole, but a thief is a thief whether its a design or 10 cents.
She's a scammer
1) Woman was wrong for stealing her co-worker's design 2) They are dressed fine - why would you even bring that up - I have seen people in real court in shorts and tees - these women are covered and decent .
Agree. To insult their attire was low.
@@MarieLowe-wy8vp Zech ought to know better!
he's commenting on the video... in your opinion they dressed fine, in his opinion, they arent 🤦♂️
@@sambog2635 Why even comment on their attire to being with?
@scribe712 he is commenting on the video!! that is what this video is, him commenting 🤦♂️🤦♂️ stop being such a cry baby
Zach, you obviously know NOTHING about intellectual rights……people will steal you all day long. Artist deserves every bit of the money and then some. You are way out of your depth on this.
The judge was just kidding when she seemed to side with he defendant but the plaintiff didn’t know this. Judge is correct in her judgment.
Defendant was so stupid….she convicted herself.
When you draw something, unless you sign a contract that states otherwise, you automatically own the copyright to that drawing. This artist gave her permission for her coworker to use her art once, for her wedding. Not to start a business profiting off that art. As soon as someone asked about the t shirts, she should have explained that it was her coworker’s art and either asked her coworker what she’d charge to license her art, or put the artist and the other person in touch with each other.
She absolutely should not have used her design without permission. That is illegal. You would not take a graphic off the web without making sure you had a license so you already know that. If there had been an agreement, the artists would have only gotten a small share of the profit but she got it all because the defendant broke the law. Crime does not pay.
You don’t have to think about it. She stole from her
The defendant is outta pocket and trying to justify her behavior. It’s not your design/work. Period! Trifling 🤦🏾♀️
As an artist ,always insulting when people use the term “leisurely or for fun “ as if our talent just pop out and we actually have no commitment or any hours of work and practice behind every stroke ! Always not wanting to pay since it’s so easy to do ! Then do it yourself !
The art is intellectual property. It belongs to the creator.
It is called copyrightinfridgement, she is lucky she only has to pay $2600.
And stop with the, "not dressed appropriately for court!" As long as they're covering all the bits they're legally supposed to be covering, people can wear whatever clothing they happen to have on at the time! Some people don't have as many options as you do!
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽well said. Plus he flip flops about his opinion.
The woman that is stealing should be jailed! What a low rent thief!
What a drama queen. And yes I mean you.
Copyright infringement is about financial reimbursement. Not about putting someone in jail.
@@therealgodessisis🤡
I love how she minimizes stealing.
she’s a thief for stealing someone else’s design
The copyright laws always apply. You have to license use. It was verbal limited use.
She had a limited use agreement. Also never partner with a thief in business
It was never a business to begin with. She told her she could use the design for bridal party t-shirts. Not to sell.
The woman is an opportunist who would steal candy from a baby with no remorse. She took advantage of the artist and the artists' goodwill gesture. If the shoe was on the other foot that crooked bride would want the artist locked up! Judge Perez saw straight through her act.
Even if the design was a "gift" which is clearly was not, I would have at least asked the artist about marketing the design, particualrly since I would profit so well from it. Very shady indeed.
No question, the design is the intellectual property of the artist. The colleague who was given permission to use it for her bridal party outfits, knew darn well that was the use implicit in the gift. Whether the artist had the desire or ability to produce other garments with the design is irrelevant. The colleague stole the intellectual property when she saw an opportunity to profit from it herself.
Its not the first time she's stolen from someone or done someone wrong, either. It's written on her face the evil that she has conjured up in her head. Congrats, Nicole.
Gotta love sisterhood, she's claiming that she didn't want a business yet couldn't put her co worker on, just decided to be selfish. Love it
I really appreciate this Juge, and she is so sweet.
Intellectual property is part of international law. When a person creates something, they automatically become its owner-this is an inherent right. Licensing occurs when an artist grants permission for someone else to sell a product featuring their work. For example, products with Disney characters are licensed; in these cases, the artist or company grants limited permission for specific uses. Once this period or purpose ends, the license expires as well. Intellectual property rights do not require a written or verbal agreement for ownership, as the creator is always the original owner. This only changes if the creator sells their rights, transferring ownership of the creation.
Just like professional photography….you must purchase the rights to make copies of photos
@shellymedley6795 Exactly, amazing example. There are sites like Pixabay that you can download and use for commercial purposes for free, but even in these situations the photographer still is the picture owner.
Wow, she is so entitled. And yes she is totally manipulating the artist words. Good call judge
This is really a matter of decency. She was given the design for her bridal party. The least she could have done when orders started to come in was to discuss this with the one who actually made the design that got much interest and which resulted into a business idea. But she did not involve the artist and started thinking that now she ows the design and therefore can do anything with it. The artist was kind in the first place to share her the design to use for her special day. You may think this is a small matter, but for artists, it is. As i said, the artist was nice to her. Sometimes it is not even about the money. A simple acknowledgment goes a long way.
Using a design for a personal reason is a very different thing from SELLING a borrowed design online. Plus, people buying the t-shirts were probably under the impression the Defendant came up with the design. The work "she did"?!? She slapped the design on t-shirts. The DESIGN was what made the t-shirts sell. Also, just a side note, that design looks just like the Saved By the Bell logo😂.
The point she made a profit with her design is why she wrong
The defendant should have asked for permission from the plaintiff and started a business together .. instead defendant became greedy
That’s y a lot of these artists being sued now they gave them the song to sing but they not getting credit for writing the song that made them so famous
Wow.. fair judgment indeed..and omg what a greedy co worker! I wish you good health and have a great day, judge.. mabuhay❤
You are right. She should have asked permission to sell and they could have both profited. As far as the design, you are also correct, in my opinion, as an artist, the design was super basic. The build-up 2 the design had me, because I was expecting something super creative😢 The defendant could have simply created a free canva acct and created her own designs.
Sad that they did not work together. The bride was greedy
Even if the judge ruled against the complainant,the defendant selling her design was an immoral thing to do.She was literally profiting from the complainant's work.That is so wrong!!
How could anyone be so ratchet that you wouldn't offer her a cut of the profits. Couldn't you make a whole deal about this by making an agreement with her for even more designs?
As an artist, I wouldn't have accepted half the profits if I never agreed to have my design used by someone else for profit. I would sue for 100% of the profits and then sell my own design and keep 100% of the profits. Not split it 50/50 with someone else.
When some one buys a painting from an artist or even commissions a painting or gifted a painting they own just that. The design and image rights still belong to the creator. People always trying to steal artists intellectual property
Very well put.
They are dressed fine. Maybe skip that comment next time.
Yikes! She is a thief. Imagine stealing from your friend and denying it.She definitely broke the copyright laws.
Your comment about their attire is ludicrous. The artist SAID she could have the design for her bridal party.
Him judging Black women attire …?
As a artist, there's a thing called copyright, copying someone's art is piracy; never mind if you don't like, same goes for music etc. You cannot sell something that is not yours; would she do that to a famous brand, they would bankrupt her, how dare she?😱😱😱😱
The term piracy is usually used in reference to computer programs, books, music and films. When referring to artistic works, the more appropriate term is copyright infringement.
@scribe712 How about; Intellectual property? For me said it all
First off it’s the girl said here’s the design for you to use for your shirt that means a shirt for her bridal party not a shirt for her to sale and make profit off her design that’s wrong
Wonderful ruling
Stealing is against the law... Using something that doesn't belong to you to make a profit is stealing...
She gave it to her for a specific use and it is intellectual property.
The audacity of that lady smh…. And as an artist can’t she copyright her art? Than make it to where the lady can’t use it at all?
The bride was deceitful - she should have disclosed the situation to the artist and allow her to take charge of the situation. She profited from the artist's work!!!
It is clear and without a doubt that you cannot use someone else's Intellectual property without the ARTISTS / producers permission. This was clearly given for a bridal shower. Period. The audaciousness of the T Shirt producer is mind blowing to me. If someone uses my art in anyway - other than what I authorized them to use - they are in the wrong.
ahhh she tricked me in believing she was with the defendant 😂
Good thing the Judge knows more than you. And good thing those ladies don't give a ×××× what you think about their clothing choices. Your judgment is rooted in something very off-putting 🤔
She received the pattern under the mutual understanding it would be for her bridal party. That’s the sole reason it was given to her, they both knew that. Only when money was being discussed did she decide to run away with it.
I don’t understand why people think it’s ok to not pay artists. Artists are often taken advantage of and people steal their intellectual property and creations. It’s such icky behaviour. It’s so ridiculous how difficult it is for an artist to do what they are talented at as a full-time career. Most do it as a side quest.
And Dude, don’t comment on what women wear. They were dressed well enough.
They look fine for court!
You can't steal an artist's design and profit off it. End of story.
Haha she use it for wedding then use in her own deed😂😂😂
Wow, Vanessa is an outright thief and what is scary is that she feels justify in doing so. Smart judge!!
I am not sure what you mean by they are not dressed appropriately.
I think the artist was very clear in her email. It was the design to be used for HER bridal shirts. That's it. Nothing else needed here.
Only one person is dressed inappropriately for court & we all know who that is.
The defendant is a thief and a scammer. She stole her design and profited off of it. They are dressed fine. There is nothing wrong with the way they are dressed. Smh.
She should had told her, others like her design and wanted to buy the tee shirts for there event. She saw she could make a profit and decided to steal it instead of letting the artist know there had been inquires how to get the design. Pay up it was stealing.
How disgusting. She does something nice for this lady and the lady turns around and uses it to benefit herself. It’s people like this that ruin everything for the rest of us. Nasty woman.
I'm an artist and she did steal intellectual property. To put this is a way that most people can understand, you can not go on the internet download an image that was created by someone else, print T-shirts and start selling them and start making a profit. You have to get consent from the artist to do it. It is the LAW. If you can't do it with a company's intellectual property, what makes you think that it is correct to do it to an individual person and never get their consent to use their work in that manner. If we as a people, respected what artists do more as a society, this wouldn't be an issue. It would be very clear for those who don't make art to understand that they have no rights to make a profit from someone else's work without entering into a contract that either gives permission for free use or lays out terms for the use of the design.
She knew it was for her shirt. She decided to sell it. Making her in the wrong. Getting a company to print on a shirt is easy. It's the design that made it sell.
Perhaps she should have been more picky about the coworker she allowed using design and knowledgeable about your coworker.
How would she know the coworker would steal her design and sell it?
The con artist dressed probably thinking she was meeting a male judge. Both have faults
It's basic IP theft, mate. That's why the judge was being sarcastic throughout, she had made her decision about 10 seconds in.
Whether the thief had the incredible idea of putting it on a TShirt or how much she invested in setting up the business and the customers. The whole enterprise was built on theft.
The plaintiff said she could use it for HER shirts for the bridal party.
She said she can use them for her own bridal party! Any thing outside this was not part of the agreement!
The judge was wrong! I don’t see that she did anything wrong! She gave her the shirts as a gift to wear for her bridal party and nothing was brought up about what she can or can’t do afterwards! She only spoke up after she saw that the woman made some money using that designs that she didn’t even have a patent for it or sign her name on it! If I was that young lady, Miss Paris, I would hire a lawyer and go to a real court!! This judge was not correct, Zech! She did NOT tell her she couldn’t sell it! It was the artists fault for not specifying that! I hope she learned her lesson and next time, maybe sign her name on the logos/designs and make a contract!
Nope she was told that she could use the design for the bridal party only….she’s a thief
Even if she paid her for the design to be used on her private party shirts, without a signed intellectual property agreement of ownership, she can Not legally resell that image in any form. Ive learned that as an artist after many of my works have been showing up on random websites and weird places. Its up to me if i sue but so far i havent found it necessary.
In no circumference she has the right to use the design commercially unless she acquire a licence for commercial uses from the artist. And she shoud have been thankful to the artist to let her use the design for her Bridal party without paying her. It cleary shows she is a con woman making profit of someone else IP. If she had good intention she would have discuss about making shirt using the design in the first place.
The artist was dressed appropriately, the women in skin tight dress while stealing from that artist , you would be correct. You shouldn’t even think you know anything about selling art….art belongs to the artist whether is a song, a painting or a poem. It belongs to the artist. Example your ridiculous opinion are you to decide to give away or sell
Good for the judge spot on as for the the orator you’ll make up your mind you are wrong
The girl stole the art work.
That design wasn't even mid if you ask me. I am surprised 100 people were willing to pay almost 30 dollars for it but hey to each is there own.
Why does this judge sound so sarcastic?! 😶
She was making the defendant think she was on her side to get her to keep talking and further incriminate herself.
The defendant first said that she would love it for her bridal shower. That the plaintiff said VERBALLY, "Yes, Yu Can Use It For Your Bridal Shower". Sure in the email she said yu can use it, but she me meant for the shower! Not to have it altogether, steal wat she MADE OF DESIGN and make more shirts to get profit.
Yeah nah, I’m an artist and I sell my designs online. You can’t claim that putting it on a shirt is changing the game. The artist and this woman were discussing her bridal party. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to assume she was uaing it for her shirts. That’s what the woman asked for - to use it on her shirts for her bridal party. The artist probably didn’t think this woman was going to go on to make other shirts. The very least she could have done was asked permission. She for sure acted illegally. Go online and see what happens when you buy art from an artist. You have the right to display it, whether that’s on a wall or t-shirt. What you don’t have is the right to take that design and make a profit from it. The only way you have that right is if the artist agrees to hand over the rights.
Use logos from Nike or Mars i.e. on shirts and sell them online, just wait how long it takes before those corporations their lawyers contact you.
See I wouldn’t even play devils advocate and argue that the defendant repurposed the design technically “altering” and that being a solid reason to steal intellectual property from someone. Take Nike’s logo and engrave it on a ring for mass production sales and they would definitely see you in court as well. Plaintiff should get in the habit of copyrighting if anything
Why would you go into business on purpose with someone so self absorbed?
Morally how does the woman live with herself when making money from someone else’s design that was given to her for a once off use for her bridal party only. Really her conscience should have had her pass the interest others had in the product onto the designer surely.
So Van Gogh painted the Sunflowers. He didn’t do it with the idea to put it on T-Shirts. Does that mean that I can use his painting and put it on T-Shirts to sell? I think not. She was kind enough to allow the grifter to use her design for HER bridal shower that doesn’t give her the right to profit off it.
Job. Theft not a job she should have informed the original artist
Wether they the design's were on shirts, or capa or whatever item.
People all over the world PAY for designs!!!!
If you use a design that's not yours, its CAlled "STEALING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" yes, its a thing.
She the complainant is absolutely right!!!
The defendant should have reached out to either include her in the business prospect or to ask her to buy her design for a price. And then use it for her business....
Where I'm from, designs for outfits wears cost few thousand bucks and if sold by a reputable brand ,designers can be paid good money for thier designs.
As the mother of an artist, she had no right to use that artwork. She was permitted to use the artwork for one single limited purpose only. As for your comment on the litigate attire, what does that have to do with the case? You sound like a petty 13 year old girl. Secondly, stealing an artists intellectual property is no different than stealing her physical property. Whether she chooses to draw for herself or for profit, it is her decision.
Wow what a thief she is disgusting.
It said for “your shirt” ..
She’s a thief
I KNOW THAT'S RIGHT!
none of them can work out wat 20 x 17 is 😂😂😂