The problem for Curtis was one item she sold: a T-shirt of a frowning purple and yellow cat. She said the sale had been made just before the US lawsuit was launched against her. The T-shirt had sat unsold for years on her site.

Conspiracy theory: the lawyers purchased that shirt so they could launch a stronger lawsuit against her.

[–] Fallstar@mander.xyz 8 points 9 hours ago

Wouldn't surprise me in the least

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 42 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

In September last year, the court ruled a default judgment in favour of Grumpy Cat Ltd. The company was awarded damages of US$100,000 per defendant.

If the payments were made in full, the company would win more than US$24m.

Curtis earned just over US$1 from the sale. In the six years she had been running her store, she had generated about US$200 in revenue.

This is why copyright laws are a joke to the public. Corporations can infringe with wanton abandon and pay pennies on the dollar as just a cost of doing business. Random nobody makes a simple mistake and gets raked over the coals for ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND times what she actually made.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

The company was awarded damages of US$100,000 per defendant.

"Damages"

[–] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

By this logic, what does AI owe? Quadrillions? More than every currency that exists combined?

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 5 points 13 hours ago

How can you call that logic? Clearly, as she must pay $24m for a copyright claim, then those corporations ought to also pay around $24m for their legal obligations.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And was originally intended to protect the rando, iirc (and I may not be).

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 6 hours ago

You're right. The intent of copyright was ostensibly to protect artists' ability to make a living off their work.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 6 points 9 hours ago

haha wow, "intellectual property" is a scam