
Katy Perry’s lawyers demand takedown of 3D printable Left Shark - luu
https://gigaom.com/2015/02/05/katy-perrys-lawyers-demand-takedown-of-3d-printable-left-shark/
======
anigbrowl
_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.

~~~
davidgerard
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
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](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.

~~~
bruna597
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?

