Showing 1 of 37 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
Blows my mind that plagiary, like this, is allowed to be sold on MD.
Yeah, splitting hairs over definitions like that isn't how you win an argument.
You know what people mean by "plagiarism".
Not really no, as people are assuming this is some sort of legal issue when the original is not protected by patent or trademark law. Unless someone had literally made a new mold from an existing artisan in an attempt to sell it, there is nothing to infringe or copy here without something that protects designs; being patents or trademarks. Doesn't matter how similar something is.
Right now the only 'splitting hairs' being done here are the proclamations that someone owns a design of something as generic as a cat's paw.
Just because something's legal, doesn't make it moral.
If these were being made by child laborers in some third world country, morality would definitely be a concern. What I'm seeing here can only be referred to as 'entitlement' since there is nothing inherently wrong with creating something similar to an existing object.
Not wanting to have a well-respected member of the community's work bastardized is now "entitlement".
Believing someone owns a design without actually owning it is entitlement.
Not only that, but a design that is found in nature. Like are you gonna sue a cat for having paws now because the cat ripped it off from its wild ancestor??