EASTER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT EGGED ON BY POPE?
POSTED BY: Rachel Dawson ON: 09 April 2009
It was no joke when news hit the papers on April Fool’s Day of a vicar being sued for copyright infringement.
It seems that Playmobil did not appreciate the changes Mr Bomhard made to their toys in an effort to recreate biblical scenes, in particular the addition of anatomically correct features and in some cases melting parts of the figurines to manipulate them into poses - see for example his interpretation of the crucifixion: www.klicky-bibel.de.
While the vicar’s site is reported to have received praise from Pope Benedict XVI, the manufacturer of Playmobil has sent him a cease and desist letter asking him to withdraw his creations from his site.
But on what basis do Mr Bomhard’s actions constitute copyright infringement?
Mr Bomhard’s tinkering with the figurines is unlikely to be in breach of the standard "economic" copyright of the owner in relation to these artistic works. In particular, he has not copied the work and the owner’s right of adaptation does not apply to artistic works in most countries’ legislation.
Another possibility is that the action against Mr Bomhard is based on the "moral" copyright belonging to the creator of the relevant figurines. Moral rights provide the creator with certain non-assignable rights, including the right not to have one’s work treated in a derogatory manner. The New Zealand legislation states that treatment of a work is derogatory if a work is distorted or mutilated in a manner that is prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
Is it derogatory treatment to melt a children’s toy for crucifixion or add anatomical parts to create Adam and Eve figures derogatory treatment?
For an example of a successful defence against Mattel in relation to provocative photos taken of Barbie dolls see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/national/28barbie.html Other examples of use or mis-use of Playmobil characters are: