Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8363088" data-attributes="member: 177">Yep.Correct.&nbsp; And it was never intended to cover all those others.&nbsp; Precisely!&nbsp; That is exactly the point!&nbsp; Reducing the risk is the goal.&nbsp; In corporate speak, it is more commonly called &quot;risk mitigation&quot;.&nbsp; Broadly speaking, risk cannot be completely eliminated, but if you can take low-cost steps that greatly reduce the risk (like, say, by including such a clause), then it is often cost-effective to do so.&quot;Since it isn't perfect and cover cases that have nothing to do with the contest, why bother?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; If it isn't perfect for everything, why take any steps at all?Let me ask you - you carry some form of insurance, don't you?&nbsp; Auto, home, health, something, right?&nbsp; Is that insurance built to completely cover any and all possible costs?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Well, there you have it!&nbsp; So, yes, each piece of art posted publicly on the internet is a potential small risk, in theory.&nbsp; However, my understanding is that the cases follow thusly:Case 1: You have no prior business contact with Company.&nbsp; Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours.&nbsp; You need many points of similarity between the pieces to win the case.&nbsp; Having found your art on the internet is hypothetical, and so the argument that they developed the piece independently is highly plausible.&nbsp; You need the images to be VERY similar to overcome that.Case 2: You have submitted a piece of art to the Company for a contest.&nbsp; Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours.&nbsp; You need far fewer points of similarity between the pieces to win the case. You can establish that they had a copy of your work already - the scenario that they didn't independently develop the work is much more plausible.And, with a contest, there are hundreds or thousands of potential Case 2s hanging around for decades.&nbsp; Those risks add up.But, boilerplate contract clauses are usually near zero cost.&nbsp;&nbsp; A near-zero cost to remove those hundreds or thousands of small risks is usually a win for the company.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8363088, member: 177"] Yep. Correct. And it [I]was never intended[/I] to cover all those others. Precisely! That is exactly the point! Reducing the risk is the goal. In corporate speak, it is more commonly called "risk mitigation". Broadly speaking, risk cannot be completely eliminated, but if you can take low-cost steps that greatly reduce the risk (like, say, by including such a clause), then it is often cost-effective to do so. "Since it isn't perfect and cover cases that have nothing to do with the contest, why bother?" If it isn't perfect for everything, why take any steps at all? Let me ask you - you carry some form of insurance, don't you? Auto, home, health, something, right? Is that insurance built to [I]completely[/I] cover [I]any and all possible costs[/I]? No? Well, there you have it! So, yes, each piece of art posted publicly on the internet is a potential small risk, in theory. However, my understanding is that the cases follow thusly: Case 1: You have no prior business contact with Company. Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours. You need [I]many[/I] points of similarity between the pieces to win the case. Having found your art on the internet is [I]hypothetical[/I], and so the argument that they developed the piece independently is highly plausible. You need the images to be [I]VERY[/I] similar to overcome that. Case 2: You have submitted a piece of art to the Company for a contest. Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours. You need [I]far fewer[/I] points of similarity between the pieces to win the case. You can establish that they had a copy of your work already - the scenario that they didn't independently develop the work is much more plausible. And, with a contest, there are hundreds or thousands of potential Case 2s hanging around for decades. Those risks add up. But, boilerplate contract clauses are usually near zero cost. A near-zero cost to remove those hundreds or thousands of small risks is usually a win for the company. [/QUOTE]

Verification