Buchat Vs Ravens Case Study

888 Words4 Pages
Case Citation: Bouchat v. Ravens, 2000, 241 F3d 350
Parties: Frederick Bouchat, Plaintiff-Appellee Baltimore Ravens and NFL Properties
Facts: Frederick Bouchat (Plaintiff-appellee) file suit before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, seeking the payment of damages in the amount of $10,000,000. Bouchat alleges that Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and the National Football League Properties (defendants-appellants) had actually committed infringement of his three seperate drawings of his original work. Bouchat also alleged that several other drawings that he created during the concluding parts of 1995 has also been infringed upon. Additional facts showed that the other drawings were in fact created by Frederick Bouchat,
…show more content…
Therefore, based on the strikingly similar doctrine, the issue of access is inconsequential in this case of infringement.
Issue 2: Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: In deciding the case, the Court relied broadly on Copyright Law, most specifically with respect to the basics of copyright protection. In addition, the Court also maintains the strikingly similar doctrine upheld in the case of
…show more content…
Essentially, the strikingly similar doctrine permits an inference of access whenever two works are similar to one another, in essence, this negates the possibility of independent creation. As point out in a prior case, such striking similarity can lead one to believe that a work has certainly been copied from another. In this specific case, while it is true that Bouchat failed to bring forward sufficient evidence in relation to the defendant’s access of his drawings, the striking similarity between Bouchat’s works and the shield logo of the Ravens adequately shows copyright infringement. Given the aforementioned, the court additional states that it is of no moment that Bouchat did not prove that Modell (the official of the Ravens) actually saw the drawings. Instead, it was necessary to prove that the former was merely given the opportunity to view them. Bouchat’s act of send a fax copy of his drawings to the representatives of the Ravens is more than hypothetical and these acts support the Ravens infringement of Bouchat works. The court likewise sustained the fact that Bouchat drawing qualifies for copyright protection, however, the defendants argue that the drawings of Bouchat do not qualify for protection because it does not contain original elements. According to the court, while it is true that the
Open Document