This last weekend has been an interesting one. The Twitter community seems to be convinced that Euodia Roets was ripped off by an unscrupulous Woolworths despite numerous statements and interviews by Woolworths representatives which have denied this and have pointed to a process which was concluded months before entering into discussions with her and which led to the product range Ms Roets contended was derived from her ideas.
What We Have Learned So Far
More information about this controversy has emerged in the last few days. Here are some of the things we have learned:
- Woolworths embarked on a process prior to entering into discussions with Ms Roets and signed off on their designs in November 2012;
- Woolworths representatives met with Ms Roets in early 2013 and even though Ms Roets gave Woolworths’ representative a sample with her hummingbird image, it probably would not have influenced Woolworths’ production process;
- Ms Roets’ hummingbird is very similar to a work produced by photographer, RW Scott in the late 1990s.
I thought I’d explore some of the legal themes even though the story has since developed further and doesn’t seem to be quite what everyone assumed it was in the first place. The recording below is a summary of the controversy and an outline of what I see as two major legal themes: copyright infringement and unlawful competition.
Before you read further, you should also listen to Jon Robbie’s interview with Woolworths’ CEO this morning:
Many commentators have highlighted the copyright aspect of the controversy. Ms Roets highlights this in her blog post when she compares her drawing and the scatter cushion she came across in Woolworths (I included both images in my previous post). At some point someone pointed out that Ms Roets’ design looks remarkably like a photograph taken by RW Scott in the late 1990s and they are remarkably similar. This is RW Scott’s image titled “Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird”:
It is a beautiful image, as is Ms Roets’ version. If Ms Roets based her image on RW Scott’s image, her image would likely be classified as a derivative work. Assuming Ms Roets’ image is the result of sufficiently creative work on her part, it could also benefit from copyright protection despite the risk of her derivative work also infringing RW Scott’s work. Whether Ms Roets’ hummingbird infringed RW Scott’s copyright would depend on whether she had permission to use it as the basis for her work (assuming she used his work as the inspiration for hers). If she didn’t have permission (bearing in mind she was selling her hummingbird image, she probably can’t take advantage of exemptions to copyright infringement to escape an infringement claim), whoever owns the rights in RW Scott’s work could probably insist that she stop selling hers. Flowing from this, if Ms Roets copied RW Scott’s work without permission and if Woolworths copied her work without ensuring it had permission, then both Ms Roets’ and Woolworths’ works would infringe RW Scott’s. Again, making a number of assumptions here.
Interestingly, Woolworths said, in its statement, that it commissioned its version of the hummingbird from an artist in Durban in 2012. If that artist derived his or her work from RW Scott’s photograph and did so without permission, that would place Woolworths in a difficult position.
Much of the commentary conflated copyright infringement with what people seemed most upset with: an unlawful competition angle. If Woolworths stole Ms Roets’ idea, that would probably fall under a class of unlawful competition referred to as a misappropriation of a competitor’s performance. In this case that could be the case if Woolworths used Ms Roets’ idea for a cushion bearing her hummingbird design. Given that she was selling her cushion and Woolworths intended selling its version, she would clearly be a competitor (even if not a particularly threatening one) and if Woolworths hadn’t come up with its own idea independently, using her idea to subsequently produce its own range could be a form of unlawful competition.
For this to apply, Woolworths would essentially have had to have copied the product of Ms Roets’ efforts without much additional effort of its own. For various reasons this doesn’t seem to have occurred but it is certainly an interesting, if hypothetical, aspect of this controversy.
Something Woolworths’ representatives pointed to which is crucial (and will be increasingly important as more collaborative business models evolve) was how it documented every step of its production process and can point to specific dates and phases of its process of sourcing, developing and ultimately taking the idea to production. This sort of pedantic and legally motivated process isn’t very exciting and can slow a creative process down but it is in times like these that you would be very happy you took your lawyer’s advice to so this. I suspect the member of Woolworths’ legal team who insisted on this documentation process is the object of much gratitude and appreciation right now.
- This is why it is essential to include warranties and indemnities about copyright ownership in contracts with external providers. Those sorts of clauses are basically guarantees by the providers that they have sufficient rights to pass along to their client and will take responsibility if the client is later sued for copyright infringement. ↩