JerryRigEverything and DBrand Sues Casetify for Copyright Infringement

[rOwLp]

Summary

JerryRigEverything just posted a video announcing the lawsuit he and DBrand has filed against Casetify for copyright infringement when Casetify used "apparently" screenshots of DBrand's teardown skin images on their inside out cases. It appears this was not the first time Casetify tried to replicate DBrand and Zack's teardown skin, and DBrand trolled them for reusing the same image for different phone models in their first attempt at the teardown look.

 

Quotes

Quote

Dbrand, the device skin company known for trolling brands like Sony and Nintendo, is waging a legal battle of its own. The company is suing rival Casetify over claims it blatantly copied Dbrand’s Teardown device skins and cases, which are made to look like the internals of whatever phone, tablet, or laptop you’ve purchased them for. (It’s also introducing some new X-Ray skins on the same day it’s revealing the lawsuit.)

 

My thoughts

This is not the first time we've seen someone tried to copy or steal someone's work. We had Linus make videos about the same thing being done to LTT merch but I think this is the first time I saw a big company like Casetify shamelessly ripping off a product. How did this get past management? Who's brainchild was it to copy and paste someone's work and thought they wouldn't get caught. It would be interesting to see how Casetify handles it.

 

Sources

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/23/23958788/dbrand-casetify-lawsuit-teardown-skins-copyright

[venomtail]

Gonna be a weird "case" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) cause how can they copyright an xray design...? Doesn't that xray belong to whichever phone has been "xrayed?" The internal exact layount all belong to either Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever.

 

Just seems like a think that cant be copyrighted. Like someone copyrighting an apshalts surface so watchout anyone laying roads, you could accidentaly copy someone elses microspocpic road bond.

 

Like you can't stray too much away from the original. There's a reference baseline for a reason.

[YoungBlade]

This reminds me of the concept of "paper towns," where map makers put fake towns on maps as a copyright trap. The difference here, is that the Easter eggs don't claim to be real facts, so I don't think Casetify can get out of this by claiming that they had reason to believe that the phrase "Glass is glass and glass breaks" is actually an accurate feature of the inside of a phone.

[YoungBlade]

Just now, venomtail said:

Gonna be a weird "case" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) cause how can they copyright an xray design...? Doesn't that xray belong to whichever phone has been "xrayed?" The internal exact layount all belong to either Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever.

 

Just seems like a think that cant be copyrighted. Like someone copyrighting an apshalts surface so watchout anyone laying roads, you could accidentaly copy someone elses microspocpic road bond.

That's not the issue. If you watch the video, he shows that he and Dbrand put Easter eggs inside of the image, and those were also copied. They don't own the internals of the phone, but they do own the jokes and Easter eggs hidden in the image.

[venomtail]

3 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

That's not the issue. If you watch the video, he shows that he and Dbrand put Easter eggs inside of the image, and those were also copied. They don't own the internals of the phone, but they do own the jokes and Easter eggs hidden in the image.

Easter egg traps are understandable but there have been some cases that loose them by coincidence. Lets hope whichever phone that's xrayed doesn't actually have some easter egg text hidden inside it.

[YoungBlade]

3 minutes ago, venomtail said:

Easter egg traps are understandable but there have been some cases that loose them by coincidence. Lets hope whichever phone that's xrayed doesn't actually have some easter egg text hidden inside it.

The phrase "Glass is glass and glass breaks" is a catchphrase for JerryRigEverything. It isn't going to be inside any phones. And unlike other copyright traps, like fake trivia or fake towns on a map, Dbrand and JRE did not try to claim that these were real features or facts. They were advertised as Easter eggs.

[RejZoR]

4 minutes ago, venomtail said:

Gonna be a weird "case" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) cause how can they copyright an xray design...? Doesn't that xray belong to whichever phone has been "xrayed?" The internal exact layount all belong to either Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever.

 

Just seems like a think that cant be copyrighted. Like someone copyrighting an apshalts surface so watchout anyone laying roads, you could accidentaly copy someone elses microspocpic road bond.

 

Like you can't stray too much away from the original. There's a reference baseline for a reason.

The idea can be copyrighted. I don't remember anyone making cases act as "transparent" back by having internals printed on them before. So, that can be copyrighted.

 

Using generic phone non specific design however shouldn't be an issue imo unless "teardown" is trademarked as whole.

[Tedster]

I just watched the video: this will be interesting. And I guess a WAN show topic

 

It's pretty egregious.

[Tedster]

11 minutes ago, venomtail said:

Gonna be a weird "case" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) cause how can they copyright an xray design...? Doesn't that xray belong to whichever phone has been "xrayed?" The internal exact layount all belong to either Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever.

 

Just seems like a think that cant be copyrighted. Like someone copyrighting an apshalts surface so watchout anyone laying roads, you could accidentaly copy someone elses microspocpic road bond.

 

Like you can't stray too much away from the original. There's a reference baseline for a reason.

Copyrighting such an idea is not a point of discussion; selling exact, unique, intricate and, of course, copyrighted, designs from another company as your own for profit without any form of agreement is very much wrong and illegal.

[rOwLp]

12 minutes ago, venomtail said:

Gonna be a weird "case" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) cause how can they copyright an xray design...? Doesn't that xray belong to whichever phone has been "xrayed?" The internal exact layount all belong to either Apple, Samsung, Google or whatever.

 

Just seems like a think that cant be copyrighted. Like someone copyrighting an apshalts surface so watchout anyone laying roads, you could accidentaly copy someone elses microspocpic road bond.

 

Like you can't stray too much away from the original. There's a reference baseline for a reason.

I think since they have added creative value to the x-ray such as by digitally recreating some of the components and as you mentioned those little touches that make the teardown skin uniquely DBrand and JRE that they own it.

 

This is more like taking a photo, you don't necessarily have to own the subject being photographed but the elements and creative process that went into taking that photo makes the image yours.

 

In this case, the image of the internals is owned by JRE and DBrand, and Casetify took that image and used it for their profit without crediting or paying the owners of the image. If Casetify took their own photo of the internals of the phone and used that on their cases then it wouldn't be an issue.

[Dark]

Appears Casetify has finally removed the 'inside out' collection from their site, which displays some degree of guilt on their behalf.

[rOwLp]

6 minutes ago, Dark said:

Appears Casetify has finally removed the 'inside out' collection from their site, which displays some degree of guilt on their behalf.

yep, looks like it... checked the site out and it's now blank...

[Lightning]

Their site is no longer working. Gateway timed out

 

LOL

[Tedster]

19 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Their site is no longer working. Gateway timed out

 

LOL

Confirmed for me in Scotland. Interesting!

EDIT: Now I'm seeing 502 Bad Gateway instead.

 

Pingdom's page speed test from Australia confirms this too, and rather likes the timeout page for its simplicity:

Spoiler

I just learnt that Solarwinds owns Pingdom. I'm sad now.

[Marc-Andre]

Wow! What a bunch of crooks! I already wasn't a fan of there's but this is disgusting. Good on both of them for making the work to bring these pricks to court.

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, Dark said:

Appears Casetify has finally removed the 'inside out' collection from their site, which displays some degree of guilt on their behalf.

That requires a spine, if they had any they would not have done it in the 1st place. Its just damage control.......

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Dark said:

Appears Casetify has finally removed the 'inside out' collection from their site, which displays some degree of guilt on their behalf.

Not really a sign of guilt.  It's just that if they happen to lose the case; if they had kept selling it throughout that period they probably would get a lot larger of a punishment.

 

I always hate it when the news sites can't be bothered to link to the original filing.  I haven't found the original filing yet; but at least here is the Canadian case number

 

T-2467-23

 

You can search it here: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files

 

Now here's my other gripe, it labels the lawsuit as a Trademark dispute...which a Trademark dispute is different in terms of copyright.  The fact they have a "registered copyright" means nothing in regards to a trademark lawsuit.  Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's just the way the Canadian Federal court lists things (as I haven't really looked up Canadian lawsuits before)...but if it is a trademark lawsuit, without the copyright lawsuit then the whole article's talking points are pretty moot  (The statement of claim isn't available yet on the Canadian court website).

 

Just doing a quick Trademark search in Canada, and I don't see any registered trademarks for the easter eggs (it was a quick search but still didn't find anything).

 

Now maybe it is a copyright/trademark lawsuit all in one, although I wonder how things work because in some cases they differ in terms of requiring to pay lawyers fees/expenses. 

 

So when it comes to copyright though, I am kind of curious in terms of what would be considered transformative enough etc.  There is no doubt they scanned in the image, but they also rearranged things/made their own mods to it.  Given that it's a scan of the internals, at least in the US, I think it gets trivial amounts of copyright protection...as it's internals and not something you solely own the rights to.  So while they did violate the copyright, I do wonder if it would only consider the one instance of copyright infringement, as the person who worked on the image violated the copyright; but after that the work was effectively transformed (along with the product that was sold)

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

The idea can be copyrighted. I don't remember anyone making cases act as "transparent" back by having internals printed on them before. So, that can be copyrighted.

No!  Ideas cannot be copyrighted!  If you are going to make such a bold statement, at least do the very very basic of google searches.  The first result would have told you.

 

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=How do I protect my idea%3F,your written or artistic work.

Quote

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something.

 

Ideas can be patented, but that's a whole different ball game.

[Dark]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Not really a sign of guilt.  It's just that if they happen to lose the case; if they had kept selling it throughout that period they probably would get a lot larger of a punishment.

 

There is no reason for them to remove the product listings if they don't believe that they were in the wrong to some degree, even if it's CYA. Not that it's really a question at this point, the wrongdoing is blatantly obvious but the outcome in court is not.

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, Dark said:

There is no reason for them to remove the product listings if they don't believe that they were in the wrong to some degree, even if it's CYA. Not that it's really a question at this point, the wrongdoing is blatantly obvious but the outcome in court is not.

Copyright/trademark stuff can be a finicky thing.  You can firmly believe you are in the right; but you could still lose a case and end up having to go to appeals to get it overturned. 

 

I can't remember the case well enough at the moment, but there was a case in Florida where someone lost a copyright claim that was clearly under fair use because the judges in that case took a really weird stance in the reading of fair use where the Supreme Court eventually heard the case and had to clarify what everyone was thinking.

[Dark]

Just now, wanderingfool2 said:

Copyright/trademark stuff can be a finicky thing.  You can firmly believe you are in the right; but you could still lose a case and end up having to go to appeals to get it overturned. 

 

I can't remember the case well enough at the moment, but there was a case in Florida where someone lost a copyright claim that was clearly under fair use because the judges in that case took a really weird stance in the reading of fair use where the Supreme Court eventually heard the case and had to clarify what everyone was thinking.

Absolutely agree. 

[fos1x]

IF YOU ASK YOURSELF, "How come the images of the internal of some products that DBRAND and JRE didn't own can be copyright?"

 

- First go watch the Video

- Second JRE and Dbrand take those images themselves and those Images are heavily edited to look nicer and Casetify allegedly straight up copy and paste JRE's images into their product and sell it, Jerry said if Casetify were take the images themselves by buying the product, he has nothing against it! but this is straight up thief!

 

- If you still don't understand, imagine you are a photographer you take some nice wildlife photo, you didn't own the scenery or the idea of wildlife photography, you sell your photos for $, but then this billion $ company suddenly copy and paste your photo, frame it and sell them for their own profit!

[alexdadoof]

hehehe

their website is down.

even here in Korea 

seems y’all need to stop jumping to conclusions and watch the video.

its not the idea that’s copyright infringement 

it’s the fact that they literally left jerryrigeverything and dbrand’s easter egg designs in the products they stole and are selling/sold

glass is glass and glass breaks is JRE’s signature phrase, these idiots literally left the design with that motto in the design they sold, clearly proving they just save as-ed off the dbrand site and repurposed their work and development for their own products.

 

Watch the video

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, dafo446 said:

If you still don't understand, imagine you are a photographer you take some nice wildlife photo, you didn't own the scenery or the idea of wildlife photography, you sell your photos for $, but then this billion $ company suddenly copy and paste your photo, frame it and sell them for their own profit!

That one actually still falls in the "it depends" category.  You do own the copyright in that case, but you own the copyright to the specific image and not the aspects of the image.  If they lets say took it and modified it in a way that it now looks different from yours; then does that count as enough for the work to have been transformative.

 

That's where I think this case gets a bit more finicky.  It's no longer a 1-1 copy of the copyright, instead they went in and modified it in a way that they cut out components, removed text, added text etc.  While I do think that JRE and DBRAND would probably win in a copyright case, I do feel that it starts to skirt the grey area of the law in regards to what can be copyrighted.

 

With that said as well, I will wait until the filing documents are actually published and a response...since things change if they lets say did file it as a trademark dispute.

 

 

[jagdtigger]

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

f they lets say took it and modified it in a way that it now looks different from yours; then does that count as enough for the work to have been transformative.

That is the whole issue as far as i see it, it is a 1-in-1 copy-pasta......

[Senzelian]

f*ck him tho for the stupid clickbait video

going public with such a video is about as dumb as copying someone's work