[kmichaels]

Right, but usually the licensing around libraries/templates is quite clear? At least it should be.

Here's specifically what they're claiming copyright over:

"DDC’s counsel answered that DDC is focused on expressive content that is not in the actual design of the component, such as the font or the colors used, the shape of a comment box, or the placement of certain components around the design which appear in the design file, but which are not the design itself."

Which seems very weak. Clearly they really would want to go after the Chinese sub-contractor but know this is too hard.

Only way round this I can see is new legislation that means you can be held responsible for copyright violations of sub-contractor if you can reasonably expected to know they are violating copyright.

Going after copyright on the output files is daft and dangerous.

[zokier]

> Right, but usually the licensing around libraries/templates is quite clear?

I think it would have been clear if UE had used legitimate licensed version of the software. In that case I'd imagine they would have gotten license to the auxiliary content too. But if they were using unlicensed pirate version of the software then they would not have had proper license to the content and so the output files would have been infringing too.

[kmichaels]

This case isn't about libraries/templates. If it were I think it would be a clearer copyright violation.

[zokier]

> the font or the colors used, the shape of a comment box, or the placement of certain components around the design which appear in the design file, but which are not the design itself

Sounds a lot like a description of a template to me

[macmac]

Agree that it should be clear. Reality unfortunately in my experience is a lot less so.