- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Copyright Infringement in Communal Gift – part II
The defendant (=def), a settlement community, decided to give as a present to its few hundred families, magnetic signs with a certain design and the families’ names on them. Their Director of Culture took a picture of a sign in front of family A’s house to a printing press and asked for a similar design. (She tried to call the designer of that sign, but when she did not succeed, she proceeded). Because she did not like the result, she approached a designer who worked at a child care center belonging to def, and asked her to quickly come up with an alternative. The designer took a design for a sign off a Facebook site for designers; the design had pl’s name and number on the bottom. This was used for signs that were given out and are now on the doors of many of the yishuv’s homes. Pl is suing for: 450 shekels for use of the design and 50,000 shekel penalty for copyright infringement. Def claims that they should be exempt, because, as an entity, they did not do anything wrong. The Director of Culture acted without realizing what she was doing in this regard (she claims to not have noticed the name on the design and assumed it was from a legal source). Pl also asked that the signs be collected because they were done with poor quality, which reflects badly on her.
(based on ruling 76038 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Case: The defendant (=def), a settlement community, decided to give as a present to its few hundred families, magnetic signs with a certain design and the families’ names on them. Their Director of Culture took a picture of a sign in front of family A’s house to a printing press and asked for a similar design. (She tried to call the designer of that sign, but when she did not succeed, she proceeded). Because she did not like the result, she approached a designer who worked at a child care center belonging to def, and asked her to quickly come up with an alternative. The designer took a design for a sign off a Facebook site for designers; the design had pl’s name and number on the bottom. This was used for signs that were given out and are now on the doors of many of the yishuv’s homes. Pl is suing for: 450 shekels for use of the design and 50,000 shekel penalty for copyright infringement. Def claims that they should be exempt, because, as an entity, they did not do anything wrong. The Director of Culture acted without realizing what she was doing in this regard (she claims to not have noticed the name on the design and assumed it was from a legal source). Pl also asked that the signs be collected because they were done with poor quality, which reflects badly on her.
Ruling: [Last time we saw that def is obligated to pay pl for infringing on her intellectual property rights through the actions of their employees on their behalf.]
Beit din accepts pl’s premise that the low quality of the signs is damaging to her reputation. However, it is not practical to try to collect all of them from a great number of homeowners, who are not a direct party to this case. Instead, beit din requires def to distribute the letter that is an appendage to the ruling, which explains the situation. If pl wants to use some of the award to replace the signs with improved ones, she may do so.
The law allows for payment of up to 100,000 shekels without proof of damage for intellectual property infringement. Par. 56b lists factors that are recommended to impact the amount paid, which we will list and apply to our case. 1) The scope of the infringement (e.g., number of copies) – small, only a few hundred copies. 2) Amount of time infringement went on – a year. 3) Severity of infringement – mixed. It was done intentionally, but it was not done by someone who operates in the same field as the owner of the rights. 4) Level of loss – only 450 shekel, estimated that def would have had to pay pl for rights in the first place. 5) Gain by violator – again, 450 shekels. 6) Nature of violator’s activities – not involved in the field. 7) Level of awareness of violation – aware.
Based on the above analysis, we obligate def to pay pl 4,500 shekels.
Case: The defendant (=def), a settlement community, decided to give as a present to its few hundred families, magnetic signs with a certain design and the families’ names on them. Their Director of Culture took a picture of a sign in front of family A’s house to a printing press and asked for a similar design. (She tried to call the designer of that sign, but when she did not succeed, she proceeded). Because she did not like the result, she approached a designer who worked at a child care center belonging to def, and asked her to quickly come up with an alternative. The designer took a design for a sign off a Facebook site for designers; the design had pl’s name and number on the bottom. This was used for signs that were given out and are now on the doors of many of the yishuv’s homes. Pl is suing for: 450 shekels for use of the design and 50,000 shekel penalty for copyright infringement. Def claims that they should be exempt, because, as an entity, they did not do anything wrong. The Director of Culture acted without realizing what she was doing in this regard (she claims to not have noticed the name on the design and assumed it was from a legal source). Pl also asked that the signs be collected because they were done with poor quality, which reflects badly on her.
Ruling: [Last time we saw that def is obligated to pay pl for infringing on her intellectual property rights through the actions of their employees on their behalf.]
Beit din accepts pl’s premise that the low quality of the signs is damaging to her reputation. However, it is not practical to try to collect all of them from a great number of homeowners, who are not a direct party to this case. Instead, beit din requires def to distribute the letter that is an appendage to the ruling, which explains the situation. If pl wants to use some of the award to replace the signs with improved ones, she may do so.
The law allows for payment of up to 100,000 shekels without proof of damage for intellectual property infringement. Par. 56b lists factors that are recommended to impact the amount paid, which we will list and apply to our case. 1) The scope of the infringement (e.g., number of copies) – small, only a few hundred copies. 2) Amount of time infringement went on – a year. 3) Severity of infringement – mixed. It was done intentionally, but it was not done by someone who operates in the same field as the owner of the rights. 4) Level of loss – only 450 shekel, estimated that def would have had to pay pl for rights in the first place. 5) Gain by violator – again, 450 shekels. 6) Nature of violator’s activities – not involved in the field. 7) Level of awareness of violation – aware.
Based on the above analysis, we obligate def to pay pl 4,500 shekels.

P'ninat Mishpat (704)
Various Rabbis
445 - Copyright Infringement in Communal Gift – part I
446 - Copyright Infringement in Communal Gift – part II
447 - End of a Rental
Load More

Learning Right after Shacharit
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Sivan 5783

How Much Pay for the Fired Lawyer? – part I
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 17 Elul 5783

Payment to a Lawyer when Agreement is in Dispute - part II
Various Rabbis | Sivan 21 5778

P'ninat Mishpat: Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 19 5784

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Connection to the Present and the Past
Iyar 21 5775

Unfulfilled Raffle Prize – part I
5777 Tammuz 22

Compensation for Withheld Salary
5771

Altercation with a Photographer – part I
Tammuz 9 5777

The Nature of the Land of Israel
Rabbi Ezra Cohen | Heshvan 10 5783

Prayer for Redemption and Blessings for Mashiach
Rabbi Avraham (Abe) Abrahami

The Halacha and History of the Gid Hanosheh
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | kislev 5769
Who Can Be Counted in a Minyan?
Chapter Two-part three
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed

Orot HaMilchama part IV- Wars & Selflessness- Part of the Process of Geula
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Kislev 7 5784
Judging Favorably – Even the Good Ones
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed | 11 Kislev 5784

How the Four Places Called "Zion" are All the Same
Rabbi Moshe Tzuriel | 4 Kislev 5784
