[lostcolony]

What you're saying is that action = intent. Meaning intent is immaterial; the action is proof of intent. I.e., the opposite of caring about intent.

To prove intent you'd have to prove the daycare knew the works were copyrighted (i.e., the distinction between public domain Snow White, and Disney's Snow White), knew the copyright law sufficiently to know this was infringing (i.e., painting on the interior of a daycare where you're clearly not economically benefiting), and to choose to do it anyway.

Hence why copyright law doesn't take intent into account; 'ignorance of the law is not a defense'.

[drdeca]

This isn't the intent being referred to. They aren't referring to "intent to violate copyright law".

If your intent is to comment on Shakespeare, and it happens that what you produced, when run through some process, produces something under copyright, but the thing you intended to express doesn't, I don't think that would violate copyright law? Or at least, no one would convict you.

[drdeca]

Also, my understanding is that if you can prove that your creation of something was independent of someone else’s creation of the same thing, it isn’t a copyright violation?