POSTED BY:
Rachel Dawson
ON:
9 Apr 2009It 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: