OK, not about the Wizard of Oz, but the sentiment is much the same -- including the ambiguity introduced by the punctuation, or lack thereof, come to think of it.
By DAVE ITZKOFF
nytimes.com, May 28, 2010, 5:14 pm
A federal judge on Friday encouraged the parties involved in a dispute over Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, which is based on an Associated Press photograph, to come to a resolution, suggesting that The A.P. was likely to prevail in court.
Mr. Fairey filed suit against The A.P. last year seeking a judge’s declaration that his poster was protected from copyright infringement claims. The A.P. then filed an infringement suit against Mr. Fairey, who has acknowledged the poster was based on a photograph of Mr. Obama taken in 2006 by Mannie Garcia, a freelance photographer.
On Friday, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York said in a hearing that “whether it’s sooner or later, The Associated Press is going to win” the case....
You know ... perhaps it's just me, but doesn't coming out and saying, "You know, that party is going to win", especially when it's the party with the much deeper pockets, pretty much argue against there being a settlement? I mean, apart from the cost of the trial -- which will be borne by Mr. Fairey, should he lose -- and the costs of their lawyers -- who are undoubtedly on retainer -- what incentive does this give AP to settle? Why would they bother? The article indicates that Fairey has tried to settle -- as well he should, given that he's essentially conceded almost every issue during the pretrial period -- but that AP isn't interested. I can't see this making them more interested; the only thing to be afraid of would be a judge pissed off because they're wasting his time. (Which, to be sure, is something they should be afraid of, but I suspect they're much more interested in making an example of Mr Fairey -- that is, pummeling him into the fiscal turf.)
Posted by iain at June 01, 2010 11:54 AM
