Comment

Comment by pnw_hazor

Well-developed (highly-litigated) areas of law don't work this way.

A phrase in children's book is unlikely to be considered sufficient evidence that Disney has conveyed an unlimited license to sell Mickey puppets.

At best, the language might protect an unsophisticated infringer from having to pay statutory damages or Disney's legal fees. For example, if a naive person (non-lawyer, non-business person) sold a few of the infringing puppets on Etsy, Disney would drop it (or a court would force Disney to drop the case, if needed) as long as the infringer promises to stop infringing.

In contrast, a sophisticated infringer would be hung out to dry. Because sophisticated infringers cannot credibly suggest that they believe Disney has conveyed an unlimited right to make and sell Mickey puppets based on a phrase included in a children's book.

Note, the words of a license or contract (including signatures if present) are taken as providing some amount of evidence of a license or contract. Contract docs memorialize an agreement between parties to enter into a contract. Formality requirements depend on the stakes, tradition, sophistication of the parties, etc. Most of this can vary widely depending on the industry or type of contract. Plus, in many cases, other statutes or regulations may come into play depending on the subject matter, type of agreement, duration of agreement, jurisdiction, and so on.

Here, since conventional language or formalities that Disney normally uses when licensing its IP is absent, a court is likely to find no license grant or contract.

parent pnw_hazor 6 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton