Comments on: Moulinsart Miss the Point (and the Law)

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:02:51 +0000

The ruling laid on Garcia is completely disproportionate. He published 500 copies of an analysis of Tintin. It takes a very thin reading of the case to consider it as “contre-façon” (counterfeit). Who in their right minds would think they were buying a Tintin book in this case?

The sum of €50,000 is also completely surreal. We’re not talking about someone who printed thousands of Tintin books to sell in a supermarket. What connection is there between that sum and the possible damages that Molinsart could have suffered?

In addition to the obvious greed of Moulinsart, one has to question the judge in this case. What was he thinking?

By: admin

admin — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:37:07 +0000

@Stuart,

For most authors and publishers there is no harm in clearing things with the copyright holder. It can save a lot problems in the long run but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Here in the UK, Fair Dealing is explicitly enshrined in law and it has good case law to support it. Though to qualify as Fair Dealing there are a number of conditions that need to be met, e.g. acknowledgment of copyright.

Chris

By: Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:52:02 +0000

I’ve edited and published a lot of authors who quote in-copyright writers and the legal advice I’ve received (and have passed on to my authors) is that one should always seek permission and not assume that ‘fair dealing’ will offer any kind of protection. I don’t know about the specifics of this case, but in most iterations of fair dealing, it is not a ‘legal right’ as you put it but a form of ‘defence’ which many lawyers (and judges) typically regard as a ‘weak defence.’ If a copyright holder is determined to push their rights, courts will typically side with them. Dealing with author’s estates is particularly problematic — I usually find authors themselves very understanding and willing to co-operate with small publishers, whereas agents and estates are more likely to want to protect what is to them an asset.

By: Pe-ads

Pe-ads — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:41:35 +0000

Man alive, they’re pushing the limit! In the third paragraph “If we feel the manuscript is lacking in quality…it is quite normal for us to feel that we shouldn’t allow the reproduction of frames.” What?

Moulinsart really annoys the pants off me. Can’t they just follow the actual law? And if Bob Garcia was bordering on unfair usage, if they don’t mind it why can;t they just let him keep it? Why bankrupt him? He’s a CUSTOMER for crying out loud!