It's the principle of the thing!

[jeriendhal]

So, Steve Austin, a leathermaker who got permission to do limited amounts of Pern related leather goods, expands his operation beyond what Anne McCaffrey believes she agreed to.

She withdraws permission for him to sell the stuff.

He keeps selling the stuff.

Legal briefs are exchanged, and he loses.

He continues to sell the stuff. His logic, "Its the principle of the thing!"

Because, y'know making a profit off of someone's else intellectual property is perfectly all right, if you're doing it for the Fans. (or anyone else paying you money)

SFWA's take: http://sfwa.org/contracts/griefcomadvisories.htm#austin

Austin's take: http://www.austinleatherworks.com/Lawsuit%20Q&A.htm

Comments

[neonnurse.livejournal.com]

I hope he gets his day in court somewhere, because it sounds to me like he has a shot at some compensation, or at least legal vindication.

[jeriendhal.livejournal.com]

Possibly, but he's not helping his case any by ignoring legal decisions.

[neonnurse.livejournal.com]

A grievance decision by SFWA is an internal judgment, yes? Unless he is a member, it's not something he's bound by law or moral code to follow.

I can't see him making any money at all off of this, in the long run, if he is incurring legal fees, so I'm inclined to think he means it when he says he's just pissed off at how he was treated.

And of course legally McCaffrey and those working for her can make these decrees. It's still kind of tacky, sounds like to me. Sort of like a girl who had an understanding with a guy about part time fun, but as soon as her fiance gets word of it, she not only calls it off, she hollers rape....

[jvowles.livejournal.com]

Frankly, he has no case.

McCaffrey's got every right to issue and withdraw permission, formally or informally, and an email that they both acknowledge as valid is binding since they both believed it to be sufficient at the time. Fact is, he has *absolutely* no right to continue manufacturing and/or selling stuff with her copyrighted stuff after she withdrew permission. At best, he could argue that anything he produced before permission was withdrawn could be sold legally and he'd be fine.

The very second she said "you are no longer permitted to sell Pern merchandise", he was no longer permitted to do so. The very second the guy who owned the rights to the artwork he based stuff off of said "you may no longer use this", he lost the right to use it.

Period. He's got no case, and no moral standing either. He does NOT own the rights, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. And at this point, he should be sued HARD for damages. It's not his stuff. He doesn't have the right to make money off someone else's property without their permission.