Roger Kreuz

But it's the same problem that we see in written words as well, to how much copying

must there be before one believes that there is intent behind it?

And that's the issue that's difficult to resolve because it's quite often quite subjective.

Yeah, the Harrison case is quite complex, and the claim was made that even if it's unconscious, that's still an infringement.

That even if you aren't intending to copy, if it can be proven to a reasonable doubt that you were copying,

then it doesn't matter, according to some judges, whether it's conscious or unconscious.

The end result is the same.

But trying to prove unconscious intent, that gets very slippery and very psychological.

There are some phrases that are so commonly used.

One example is the bloody three-day battle of Gettysburg.

And if you Google those words, you'll find lots of examples online of that phrase.

But it's not necessarily infringement.

It simply exists as one way to describe an event.

And what has to happen in the courtroom is that

Once again, intent is really the point.

The issue is output.

If a judge or a jury believes that there is a substantial similarity between the work of one person and the work of somebody else, then they can be awarded damages.

And the problem is it could be conscious, it could be unconscious, intentional, unintentional.

In the eyes of the law, if you can convince the judge or jury, then it is that thing.

the problem becomes when you could profit from basically saying that somebody else's work is like your work.