Search Results
7/6/2025, 6:25:55 AM
>>105807452
Wrong. They can sue for copyright infringement. There is no contract between a copyright holder an a free-licensee, at all, whatsoever. There is no consideration paid, and no contact in existence.
The appeal of Jacobsen-v-Katzer found that the lower court was wrong and that the Artistic license was not a contract: only a copyright license.
Secondly, dipshit FUCK, Jacobsen-v-Katzer is 9th circuit only.
>Capachata: KOTS
>>I agree
Wrong. They can sue for copyright infringement. There is no contract between a copyright holder an a free-licensee, at all, whatsoever. There is no consideration paid, and no contact in existence.
The appeal of Jacobsen-v-Katzer found that the lower court was wrong and that the Artistic license was not a contract: only a copyright license.
Secondly, dipshit FUCK, Jacobsen-v-Katzer is 9th circuit only.
>Capachata: KOTS
>>I agree
Page 1