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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

I would say that the first design, the flames, is clearly a copyright infringement. A poorly, uninspired, and boring infringement, but an infringement none the less. The waves are an old design (probably inspired by 'Tsunami' or other, older designs, but still beyond copyright), and the triangle is obviously that 'neo-art' bull shiat from the 80's and 90's that people with more sense than money love.

But, while I like the original designs much more (more artistic and better executed), I like the broader base of the knock offs (safety point of view) as well.

I'd rule in favor of Unger maintaining copyright because the first example establishes that Wittrig is, indeed, infringing and the following designs merely cement a pattern of copyright infringement. Now, if it had just been the waves and triangle, I would have said universal design and voided the copyright.

/knitting designers face shiat like this constantly
//yes, knitting is a ruthless, technical, and detail oriented field