![]() (For more on these and other great examples of conduct courts have found to be de minimis, check out this law review article by Jeff Nemerofsky.) It even suggested that the “theft” may have been prompted by a buffet employee pressuring the couple to finish their meal, causing the court to remark: “buffet-type restaurants should not be permitted to harass people into leaving before they are ready.” On appeal, the court dismissed the case as de minimis. The husband was convicted of stealing two bananas, an orange, an apple and a pear and was fined $25. After eating at lunch at the Cornucopia Buffet at Atlantic City’s Golden Nugget, a couple decided to take a few pieces of fruit for dessert.Dismissing the case, the court noted that “n the milieu of bubble gum pilferage the only cases more trivial are those involving two pieces or one.” A defendant was charged with shoplifting three pieces of Bazooka gum valued at 15 cents from a 7-Eleven.Her parents (who amazingly lived in Texas and not West L.A.) brought a federal civil rights lawsuit on the student’s behalf, which the court tossed. A high school student was penalized for an unexcused absence with a three point deduction from her six week algebra grade, which dropped her overall GPA from 95.478 to 95.413. ![]() I’ll help, with some real life examples of our tax dollars at work: ![]() To understand the de minimis defense, just try to think of the most ridiculous lawsuits you can imagine. The phrase is actually short for de minimis non curat lex (“The law does not concern itself with trifles.”) The company argued that its use of the photograph was “de minimis,” which basically means “it’s no big deal” in latin. Tahari’s other main defense was a bit more unconventional. Because Tahari was making a commercial use of the image in a manner that wasn’t sufficiently “transformative,” the court rejected Tahari’s fair use defense. To the extent Tahari was commenting on anything, it was only to say how good Linh Niller looked wearing its clothes in order to advertise the brand. The problem for Tahari was that it wasn’t commenting on the photo, nor was it really even using the photo to comment on a newsworthy event. Like many defendants who post images on social media that they don’t own, Tahari argued that its reproduction of the photo constituted “fair use” under the Copyright Act. Iantosca registered the copyright in his photo and hired notorious plaintiffs’ lawyer Richard Liebowitz to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against Tahari. Tahari credited Iantosca as the photographer, but didn’t ask for (or receive) his permission to post the photo. Seizing an opportunity to promote its brand, Tahari posted the photo on its social media accounts. The photo at issue was Iantosca’s shot of digital content creator Linh Niller dressed in an Elie Tahari ensemble. The court rejected Tahari’s argument that reposting photos on social media has become “commonplace” and is therefore legal, granting a summary judgment motion brought by fashion photographer Mark Iantosca. learned that the hard way this week, as a judge in the Southern District of New York found the luxury fashion designer liable for copyright infringement (copy of order here). As a legal defense to copyright infringement, not so much.Įlie Tahari, Ltd. “Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can’t We?” That’s great if you’re referring to The Cranberries’ debut album. ![]() It’s a common practice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s legal. Fashion designer Elie Tahari was found liable for copyright infringement after reposting a street style photo of one of its outfits on social media.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |