Bill Mullins wrote:It looks like Sara Crasson is saying that an American court has said that "Zig-Zag Lady" is legally in the public domain. Am I reading that correctly?
Judging from how incompetent Crasson is within both her own field and ours, she is most likely misrepresenting the case in the same way she misrepresented the Rafael vs. Klok case.
The whole idea seems insane.
If both party A and party B want to infringe on the rights of party C without consequences, then party A can sue party B for infringement and have the court declare that party C doesn't own his/her own work - without ever involving party C? That is the principle here? Any two parties can sue each other in order to steal from a third party with the court's blessing? The more I see of Crasson's work, the more it seems her "research" is paid for by Magic Makers.
In Europe: Depending on how Harbin's will was written, the Zig-Zag illusion is either owned by the Magic Circle or is orphaned work, and will fall in public domain around 2048