case the court stated:
"...the Court finds that the necessary element of originality is absent from the items manufactured for La Infantil from the Precious
Moments fabric. They therefore do not constitute "derivative works" infringing on Precious Moments' copyright. Precious Moments thus does not carry
its burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits on its copyright claim..." [emphasis added]
At the beginning of the Court Order, the court makes this statement:
"Matters in this case have boiled down to a single issue -- whether La Infantil may, consistently with the copyright, trademark, and competition laws,
use authentic, lawfully acquired Precious Moments fabric to have baby bedding manufactured which it then sells to the public at the La Infantil store."
[emphasis added]
In its argument, the court points out that dervatives themselves must be independently copyrightable. No regular item (aprons, blouses, skirts, placemats, etc)
made from any licensed fabric could possible be copyrighted because they are useful items and a useful item cannot be copyrighted. License fabric is sold
with the implied licesne to cut, shape and sew it into useful items. That implied license does not control or negate the sale of the items.
quirke VASTLY misrepresents the outcome of the court case described. quirke refers to "sheets" which are not
mentioned anywhere in the Court Order. quirke also falsely calls the case "La Enfantil v. Precious Moments" when it is
"Precious Moments vs La Infantil". Do we detect a problem with details here? Tabberone quotes court cases while quirke pulls them out of quirke's ass.
The Court, not Tabberone, made the statements about the use of licensed fabrics and quirke just does not want to accept it. Tiresome?
