|
|
|
|
|
|
by fatfingerd
998 days ago
|
|
|
They provided a similar (and vastly more popular) artwork and it was displayed. Even works that are not supposed to be creative works differ from the original order and courts often don't decide on a full refund if it provided utility. I find it kind of strange that they don't want to keep these talking points but I think the court should have decided what value they already got out of using them if they don't permanently accept them. |
|
|
The limited traction they'd get from this story and empty frames would already have played out - that 100k USD can do more good as commission to other, actually skilled artists for future works than padding one greedy criminal's pockets...