3/6/2024 0 Comments Catalda fine arts lithographs![]() Some are of general nature, some relate only to single items. ![]() ![]() Defendants' objections were for the most part repetitious and cumulative in effect.We are of the opinion that the defendants' honest belief in their right so to reproduce the prints found to be infringing here was sufficiently shown to entitle them to a deduction for income taxes paid, leaving them accountable to the plaintiff only for the profits of which they actually have had the benefits. Neither the conduct of the defendants nor the nature of the offense is of sufficient gravity to warrant the imposition of the additional penalty of disallowance of the income tax deductions here.Rather, the doctrine was invoked in that case because there had been a clear showing that the profits made by the infringers there were only in part attributable to the use of the copyright material, and because the evidence further tended to show that much of the profits was due to the actors, scenery, skill in production, expense, etc., supplied and paid for by the infringers. But the Supreme Court in the Sheldon case did not rule that the doctrine of apportionment was available in each and every copyright accounting for profits.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |