Copycat business should get their larcenous, unoriginal dicks knocked into the dirt.

No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit.

ne2d: No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit DESIGN.

FTFY

The middle one looks like a blatant copy; the lowest one also, but a sufficiently minimal design that it might otherwise be permissible (cf. argument for Ghostbusters-vs-Fatso of Harvey Cartoons v. Columbia Pictures); and the top one looks non-identical but significantly derived.

The lawyers will earn their money; I'd lean 3:1 for the original artist.

I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

Sure, but that doesn't equate copyright infringement. If you make a firepit with a Greek key design on the top, you can't copyright the functional parts, the firepit itself, nor can you copyright the use of the Greek key, as it's a preexisting design.

In this case, the bottom one is simply a basic firepit with, as far as I can see, no original design embellishments, the middle uses a fairly common wave-style design and the top uses flames.

This would be akin to trying to copyright painting flames on a car.

As the article states, this case will be interesting because it will help show what can and can't be copyrighted.

/and if you think any of those designs are original, I've got an "original" bridge to sell you.

The headline is wrong. The copycat isn't trying to force the original artist to abandon his business; he's trying to claim that the artist's works are uncopyrightable (or that the knockoffs are sufficiently different that they don't infringe). That wouldn't mean that the original artist couldn't keep selling them -- it would just mean that the knockoff artist could keep selling the knockoffs.

Of course, I'd probably still buy from the original artist.

FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

Rapmaster2000: FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

Also makes them different from the "original" design.

Rapmaster2000: FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

i think he keeps it on the dock, it looks to be the same piece of stone in at least 2 of the pictures

most likely this is for pyre prevention

Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

Those firepits are awfully spikey. If I impale myself on them can I sue?

Drakuun: Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

Or people that have access to scrap metal and either an oxy-acetylene rig or a plasma cutter, like me.

/again, not saying YOU should give a fark, but I do.

Drakuun: Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

So many idiots on fark, I wonder if you're trolling or if you've never seen the 100s of NON decrotive fire pits.



Fire pits are also great of any number of other reasons. You clearly don't do alot of backyard partying, from something to set a weiner stick against to something to mitigate low flying embers, to a solid method of preventing the collapse of a pile of logs into a grey mess on the lawn. My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it, its there to stop embers and make it easier to clean out the fire pit. I guess most campsites in Canada have ugly rusted undecorated firepits for decorations. Its not like they are a nearly essential part of having a fire regularlym, only for people with more money than brains right? I suppose you do all your cooking with magic fairy pellets, or do you only eat raw unprocessed, unpreserved, uninspected, uncooked "Organic" foods?

PersistantRash: Fire pits are also great of any number of other reasons. You clearly don't do alot of backyard partying, from something to set a weiner stick against to something to mitigate low flying embers, to a solid method of preventing the collapse of a pile of logs into a grey mess on the lawn. My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it, its there to stop embers and make it easier to clean out the fire pit. I guess most campsites in Canada have ugly rusted undecorated firepits for decorations. Its not like they are a nearly essential part of having a fire regularlym, only for people with more money than brains right? I suppose you do all your cooking with magic fairy pellets, or do you only eat raw unprocessed, unpreserved, uninspected, uncooked "Organic" foods?

Hmm...

For outdoor cooking, we always used something called an "outdoor grill." They used charcoal or LP gas. I guess they don't have those where you come from.

The legal issue is a legitimate question mark, since it's legitimately up to interpretation exactly how much of the items are entirely decorative and artistic in nature and to what degree they can be distinguished from the functional elements of the item.

But at the end of the day, the original artist seems to be a decent enough guy and the copier comes off as a total douchebag prick, so you can use that to determine who to buy from.

Wittrig doesn't deny that Unger's designs came first. He simply claims that Unger has no right to copyright his fire pit designs, as they are utilitarian objects and not decorative works.

Those swirly thingies are for... spreading the heat. Yeah, that's the ticket.

KickahaOta: The headline is wrong. The copycat isn't trying to force the original artist to abandon his business; he's trying to claim that the artist's works are uncopyrightable (or that the knockoffs are sufficiently different that they don't infringe). That wouldn't mean that the original artist couldn't keep selling them -- it would just mean that the knockoff artist could keep selling the knockoffs.

That isn't what the headline says. The headline doesn't imply the original artist has to abandon his business, it says he has to abandon his copyright. Which is exactly what you went on to say later in the post.

I don't expect people to always RTFA, but please RTFHeadline before commenting.

ne2d: No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit.

As it was already copyrighted, the answer is "yes." The issue is whether that copyright can be voided because the item was, in the copycat's opinion, incorrectly categorized. The copycat's trying to invalidate the artist's copyright.

It's a war of attrition. The lawsuit allows the manufacturer to simply hammer away at the artist until the artist runs out of money to defend his copyright - once he can no longer legally respond to the copyright challenge, the default judgment goes in favor of the manufacturer.

timujin: Sure, but that doesn't equate copyright infringement. If you make a firepit with a Greek key design on the top, you can't copyright the functional parts, the firepit itself, nor can you copyright the use of the Greek key, as it's a preexisting design.

In this case, the bottom one is simply a basic firepit with, as far as I can see, no original design embellishments, the middle uses a fairly common wave-style design and the top uses flames.

This would be akin to trying to copyright painting flames on a car.

As the article states, this case will be interesting because it will help show what can and can't be copyrighted.

/and if you think any of those designs are original, I've got an "original" bridge to sell you.

My personal interpretation is that there are only a few real functional elements here. There's the pit-ness, and the stand. Maybe a third and fourth element could conceivably be the fire-resistant metal chosen, and the basic size of the work.

I think a person could reasonably divorce the styling around the rim, the color of the pit, the shape of the rim (since the third design shows that roundness is not necessarily functional and a triangle could work), and possibly, the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

My bet: 4:1 against the copycat.

PersistantRash: My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it

You can buy fire pits covered in hoo-haws? That's a design I'd buy!

cefm: The legal issue is a legitimate question mark, since it's legitimately up to interpretation exactly how much of the items are entirely decorative and artistic in nature and to what degree they can be distinguished from the functional elements of the item.

You can saw off the 3 designs ans still have a functioning firepit, they are decorative and copyrightable.

Nuuu: the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

There is no way you could possibly succeed on that claim. Prior art exists for thousands of years.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

I'm willing to bet a halfway decent lawyer can find so much prior art of those three pieces that it can be shown that neither artist is original and both are using ideas which have existed for a long time.

ThematicDevice: Nuuu: the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

There is no way you could possibly succeed on that claim. Prior art exists for thousands of years.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

I'm willing to bet a halfway decent lawyer can find so much prior art of those three pieces that it can be shown that neither artist is original and both are using ideas which have existed for a long time.

This is not a patent dispute.

Bodine Wilson: This is not a patent dispute.

Yet if you can prove that both pieces of work are merely derivative works of an earlier unprotected piece of work you should be able to explain away their similarity by that third piece.

For example if you rearrange and publish a symphony by beethoven and I rearrange and publish my own version of the same symphony they are likely to sound somewhat similar. But neither of us has infringed on the others work, further since Beethoven's work is in the public domain, neither of us infringed upon him.