Hacker News Reader

NYU law professor Christopher Sprigman tweeted that he believes Left Shark is not copyrightable because it qualifies as a “useful article,”

Useful for what? It's silly for Katy Perry's lawyers to waste everyone's time on this, but that is presumably why they are paid a fat retainer, and the shark thingy looks eminently copyrightable to me, notwithstanding my complete lack of interest in Katy Perry, her music, or her stage show.

View on HN

Applying sense to copyright law will only lead to heartbreak. I would suggest the law professor knows more, and in any case the key point is that this looks like the sort of case where the most money wins.

I know copyright law pretty well, and a 'useful article' is just what it sounds like - something with a utilitarian function. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html

I think that querying the utilitarian aspect of a toy shark is an entirely reasonable question, unless his original comment (which has since disappeared) was meant to be humorous.

The #LeftShark would be classified as a useful article if it was a costume. I dont think it was the case. I mean, the designer made it to be printed as a toy or a costume?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com