Woman who says Woolworths copied her baby carrier design will not sue - but wants retailer to account

[Swa]

Again, the law that applies here is designs and patents, not copyright. Copyright holds for literary and artistic works. The lady should probably have registered a design for the unique features of her carrier.

The law disagrees with you.

Stop trying to argue the law when you’re just woke

But seriously, this stuff is the domain of SJWs frothing at the mouth who think the law should work the way they think. There is absolutely no case in court IMO. This is not a legal issue. It’s a social justice issue.

Do I disagree with Woolies copying her product (even if not identical)... yes, and I’d be annoyed if they did that to my product too but do I think she should blame them of anything more than possibly an ethics breach? No.
Besides, woolies is a big firm, it’s not always possible to know when employees have stepped outside the lines. When it was pointed out to them, they made amends. Internally they have some training to do with their staff, that’s all. And those lines are NOT LEGAL. It was totally legal for Woolies to copy any design in the public domain.
I very much doubt she’d even have got a patent for her carrier given its a copy of other designs out there.

You are wrong. They copied a design either in part or in full. It is very much a legal issue. Under law you are also responsible for what your employees do so she could very well have sued if she wanted to. As has also been said hers is not a copy and has unique features. Stop trying to divert the issue here.

Wat? If I write music and lyrics, both can absolutely be copyrighted. What made you think I was even referring to using your rendition of anything? Recording, distributing or performing a copyrighted work without license is illegal unless you own that work. I was talking about performing your own rendition of something in the public domain. That’s what happened here. Her baby carrier is as much a copy of someone else’s idea. And it’s not illegal.

No you can perform your own rendition of it as that constitutes own work/talent. Has nothing to do with public domain as music isn't copyrighted in the same way. You're welcome to look this up if you want and there's even a different symbol for it but you can pretty much preform someone else's song and the only thing they can claim is attribution.

Everyone is just being woke and hearing what they want to hear as usual.

No you're just being stubborn.

 

[Daruk]

The law disagrees with you.

Please qualify this statement, I've looked and I believe he's right - copyright pertains to creative and written work.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.

You are wrong. They copied a design either in part or in full. It is very much a legal issue. Under law you are also responsible for what your employees do so she could very well have sued if she wanted to. As has also been said hers is not a copy and has unique features. Stop trying to divert the issue here.

Nobody's diverting the issue, you're just not understanding. No, this is not a legal issue. You can spin it any way you like, it doesn't change the facts. I've already qualified that with a quote from someone in the know. Feel free to offer backup to your point.

No you can perform your own rendition of it as that constitutes own work/talent. Has nothing to do with public domain as music isn't copyrighted in the same way. You're welcome to look this up if you want and there's even a different symbol for it but you can pretty much preform someone else's song and the only thing they can claim is attribution.

Nope. Use the internet dude.
http://blog.sonicbids.com/3-of-the-most-commonly-misunderstood-music-copyright-laws

Many musicians believe they have the right to perform any song, in any place, at any time. The right to perform songs actually belongs to the individual song owners, and not to performers. Song owners are entitled to collect royalties for all public performances of their songs, which means that performers need licenses to perform them.

I think you'll find you're being not only stubborn but lazy. Google is your friend.

 

[Lew Skannen]

Please qualify this statement, I've looked and I believe he's right - copyright pertains to creative and written work.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html



Nobody's diverting the issue, you're just not understanding. No, this is not a legal issue. You can spin it any way you like, it doesn't change the facts. I've already qualified that with a quote from someone in the know. Feel free to offer backup to your point.

Nope. Use the internet dude.
http://blog.sonicbids.com/3-of-the-most-commonly-misunderstood-music-copyright-laws
I think you'll find you're being not only stubborn but lazy. Google is your friend.

You are wrong.

Anything you pen, be it a writing, a drawing, a song, a design, anything, you automatically own the copyright and IP is vested in you. From hereon forth it is pretty much a legal issue. You do not need to patent anything or apply to be protected under copyright laws.

Read that section you quoted carefully again.

 

[Daruk]

Read that section you quoted carefully again.

Another one who's alergic to research. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_South_Africa



So explain where this baby carrier fits into SA copyright law?

Look, don't take my word for it...
http://brandfinance.com/who-we-are/our-people/person/jeremy-sampson/

Jeremy is the managing director of Brand Finance Africa and has almost 50 years’ experience working in between London and Johannesburg in marketing, advertising, graphic design, public relations, reputation management and branding. He founded and was the Executive Chairman of the Africa operations of the international branding group, Interbrand until he stepped down in October 2014.

Jemerey himself was awarded the prestigious Financial Mail AdFocus Lifetime Achievement Award, in 2010 and holds over 100 design awards.

Copyright will not work in this instance

 

[Lew Skannen]

Another one who's alergic to research. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_South_Africa

View attachment 618368

So explain where this baby carrier fits into SA copyright law?

If this woman penned the design before she made the the baby carier and can produce this design, Woolworths will be in breach of the Copyright Act if they went ahead and copied her design and had their own baby carriers made based on her design.

Woolworth's attorneys will have advised their client accordingly and the company would have taken appropriate steps to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

Again, you need to understand the section you have quoted and how it is applied in criminal and/or civil cases.

 

[Daruk]

If this woman penned the design before she made the the baby carier and can produce this design, Woolworths will be in breach of the Copyright Act if they went ahead and copied her design and had their own baby carriers made based on her design.

Woolworth's attorneys will have advised their client accordingly and the company would have taken appropriate steps to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

Again, you need to understand the section you have quoted and how it is applied in criminal and/or civil cases.

You haven't answered my question. What class of work does it fall under? Go back and read what I posted. And why do you suppose an expert has been quoted saying straight out that copyright will not work here?
That aside, where are these designs they were meant to have copied? You're also adding the 'if she had' part. You're all over the place.

 

[lumeer]

Ugh, for the umpteenth time, a baby carrier is not covered by copyright, it is covered by design or patent depending on what exactly feature is being protected.

From Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC):

What type of content enjoys copyright protection?

The Copyright Act protects certain classes or categories of works. The following works are eligible for copyright in South Africa (in the Republic).

1. Literary works e.g. books and written composition novels.
2. Musical works e.g. songs.
3. Artistic works e.g. paintings and drawings.
4. Cinematograph films e.g. programme-carrying signal that has been transmitted by satellite.
5. Sound recordings.
6. Broadcasts e.g. broadcasting of films or music.
7. Programme-carrying signals e.g. signals embodying a programme.
8. Published editions e.g. first print by whatever process.
9. Computer programs.

Do you see anything even remotely resembling a baby carrier on that list? No. Copyright applies to literary and artistic works.

Again from the CIPC:

What is a Design?

Essentially a "Design" is about shape and features that appeal to the eye.

Some designs are necessitated by function and others are aesthetic. Design is about the shape, form, pattern, ornamentation and configuration of a product or article for e.g. the design of a ring (Jewellery) is generally dictated by aesthetic features.

There are 2 types of designs which can be registered:

1. An aesthetic design
   • Has to be new and original
   • Beauty is in its shape, configuration or ornamentation
   • Must be able to be produced by an industrial process
2. A functional design
   • Has to be new and not commonplace
   • Where the shape or configuration is necessitated by the function
   • Must be able to be produced by an industrial process

and

Section 25 of the Patent Act, Act 57 of 1978 defines the scope of patentable inventions in negative by specifying what cannot be patented.
A patent may, subject to the provisions of this section, be granted for any new invention which involves an inventive step and which is capable of being used or applied in trade and industry or agriculture. These include inventions such as appliances, mechanical devices and so on. However, you may not protect things such as :

• Computer programmes
• Artistic works
• Mathematical methods and other purely mental processes
• Games
• Plans, schemes, display of information
• Business methods
• Biological inventions
• Methods for treatment of humans and animals

Please note that the above mentioned things cannot be patented as such. For example, a computer programme is patentable as part of a technical solution, i.e. when it is used to operate a specific device or machine such as a winder, a crane or parking management.

A baby carrier does not enjoy copyright protection. The designer could have registered the design, or special aspects of the design such as the straps that she states are uniquely located so as not to irritate a C-section scar, or if the carrier featured a unique invention then that could have been patented. Copyright protection is automatic, design and patent protection is not. Woolworths settled with her for reputational reasons, not legal reasons.

 

[lumeer]

If this woman penned the design before she made the the baby carier and can produce this design, Woolworths will be in breach of the Copyright Act if they went ahead and copied her design and had their own baby carriers made based on her design.

Woolworth's attorneys will have advised their client accordingly and the company would have taken appropriate steps to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

Again, you need to understand the section you have quoted and how it is applied in criminal and/or civil cases.

No, Woolworths would potentially have violated her copyright of the design if they went and printed the exact design of hers (an exact reproduction mind you) on pieces of paper and sold it to the public. That would be copyright violation.

 

[Daruk]

You know, there comes a time when you realise that people are either just trolling or have gone so far down the road that they don't want to let go. I have no idea which it is lol, but I don't get the attachment to the misinformation personally.

 

[Lew Skannen]

You haven't answered my question. What class of work does it fall under? Go back and read what I posted. And why do you suppose an expert has been quoted saying straight out that copyright will not work here?
That aside, where are these designs they were meant to have copied? You're also adding the 'if she had' part. You're all over the place.

No worries.

You simply do not understand the law.

If Woolworths were not in breach, they would have fought this woman in court.

While everyone here voice their opinions, there are experienced legal practitioners who dealt with this matter. Correct legal advice were given and the matter was dealt with correctly.

 

[Lew Skannen]

No, Woolworths would potentially have violated her copyright of the design if they went and printed the exact design of hers (an exact reproduction mind you) on pieces of paper and sold it to the public. That would be copyright violation.

This matter was never about the actual stroller, but rather about the copyright of her drawings on what the stroller would look like. Copyright was breached in terms of that drawing, which is protected.

The only way Woolworths would have had a chance to win this case, if they could prove they had the exact same drawing as her and that they manufactured their product before her.

Their problem is she went to them with her design and suddenly they had the same product in their store. The company will have been convicted if it ever went to court.

 

[lumeer]

This matter was never about the actual stroller, but rather about the copyright of her drawings on what the stroller would look like. Copyright was breached in terms of that drawing, which is protected.

First, it wasn't a stroller, it was a carrier. Second, Woolworths didn't copy the designer's drawings (which would have amounted to theft unless she had the drawings of the design freely available for the public), and the designer wasn't aggrieved because Woolworths supposedly copied her drawings (which they didn't), she was aggrieved because they copied her design. She never registered the design so from a purely legal standpoint had a weak case. Woolworths settled for reputational reasons, not legal reasons.

 

[Lew Skannen]

First, it wasn't a stroller, it was a carrier. Second, Woolworths didn't copy the designer's drawings (which would have amounted to theft unless she had the drawings of the design freely available for the public), and the designer wasn't aggrieved because Woolworths supposedly copied her drawings (which they didn't), she was aggrieved because they copied her design. She never registered the design so from a purely legal standpoint had a weak case. Woolworths settled for reputational reasons, not legal reasons.

Like I said above, this is your opinion. Woolworth's advocates had a different view and they were correct. You simply do not risk a company to be convicted criminally. They are lucky she did not persue this matter criminally.

 

[Swa]

Please qualify this statement, I've looked and I believe he's right - copyright pertains to creative and written work.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

You believe yes but you are wrong. You won't find a complete list of what's covered because the field is just too vast.

Nobody's diverting the issue, you're just not understanding. No, this is not a legal issue. You can spin it any way you like, it doesn't change the facts. I've already qualified that with a quote from someone in the know. Feel free to offer backup to your point.

You haven't backed up anything.

Nope. Use the internet dude.
http://blog.sonicbids.com/3-of-the-most-commonly-misunderstood-music-copyright-laws
I think you'll find you're being not only stubborn but lazy. Google is your friend.

No you'll find that the issue isn't as straight forward and there are different parts to a musical work. There's been cases where people's work too closely resembled a composition and there's been some where the melody is recognisable but isn't a copy. But I'm not going to argue the points on what constitutes infringement and what doesn't as your example is nonsensical and doesn't apply is this case.

Woolworths didn't copy something that was in the public domain. They copied something very specific and even had to have it delivered to them to do it. They settled based on legal advice and not public opinion no matter how much you cry it wasn't so.

 

[Daruk]

No worries.

You simply do not understand the law.

If Woolworths were not in breach, they would have fought this woman in court.

While everyone here voice their opinions, there are experienced legal practitioners who dealt with this matter. Correct legal advice were given and the matter was dealt with correctly.

Again, you can't backup your opinions with research yet you call everyone else uninformed? What does Woolies action relative to the social media spew have to do with the law? Squat.

 

[Lew Skannen]

Woolworths settled for reputational reasons, not legal reasons.

This is the only part I do agree with you. They settled this matter for reputational risks. They knew she approached them with her design. They knew they declined to distribute her product. They also knew they copied her design and had their own product made and shelved that in store.

They could not not apply for a patent or trademark, because when it is published in the Government Gazette, she would fight it and that would lead to civil or criminal prosecution. Due to this Woolworths never even went this route.

They were dishonest in their dealings with her. So reputational damage already occurred. Her design on paper was already protected, the one Woolworths based their design on. She can also prove that she introduced her design and product before they had it on their shelves.

The chances for a successful criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act was excellent.

 

[Daruk]

You believe yes but you are wrong. You won't find a complete list of what's covered because the field is just too vast.

Yet you haven't backed a single thing you've been saying - you've quoted yourself.

You haven't backed up anything.

Then you can't read. Sorry mate, you're not getting anywhere here.

Woolworths didn't copy something that was in the public domain. They copied something very specific and even had to have it delivered to them to do it. They settled based on legal advice and not public opinion no matter how much you cry it wasn't so.

Bull, they copied something just as she did. Neither was illegal.

 

[Daruk]

This is the only part I do agree with you. They settled this matter for reputational risks. They knew she approached them with her design. They knew they declined to distribute her product. They also knew they copied her design and had their own product made and shelved that in store.

You can't have it both ways, they were either in breach of law or not and it's clear they were not. They settled for reputational reasons meaning NOT for legal reasons.

They could not not apply for a patent or trademark, because when it is published in the Government Gazette, she would fight it and that would lead to civil or criminal prosecution. Due to this Woolworths never even went this route.

Hello - neither could she apply for patent

They were dishonest in their dealings with her. So reputational damage already occurred. Her design on paper was already protected, the one Woolworths based their design on.

Where did they have her design in their hands?

She can also prove that she introduced her design and product before they had it on their shelves.

Yet she cannot prove that her design was the first because it simply was not

The chances for a successful criminal prosecution was excellent.

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Swa]

Yet you haven't backed a single thing you've been saying - you've quoted yourself.

Don't see a reason I should when you haven't. You seem to think opinion trumps the law.

Bull, they copied something just as she did. Neither was illegal.

You seem to be the thick headed one. It was already proven she didn't copy anything and her design was unique.

 

[Daruk]

Don't see a reason I should when you haven't. You seem to think opinion trumps the law.


You seem to be the thick headed one. It was already proven she didn't copy anything and her design was unique.

OK then