Public Domain bowed to Stickman
Just like zheng said, a “radiculous” judgement on the case Nike v.s. Zhu Zhiqiang.
We never know whether Nike’s agent copied ideas from Zhu’s works. However, we know “Stickman” has existed in public domain for decades and widely used in different artworks and even technical fields(e.g. UML). Zhu did make some changes based on his skillsets. But how can the court judge it’s from the guy’s original creation, just using “stickman” and “line man” to cook a emotional judgement? (“stikcman” in google, “xiaoxiao’s stickman” in Google)
I believe Nike’s lawyers are also not internet savvy that can’t provide enough materials as evidence to show how “stickman” can’t be seperated from public domain. In the single case, they didn’t work hard enough to defense themselves. And, I’m sure they are not law bloggers and never notice the gossips in blogosphere.
It’s a case of misapplying intellectual laws. Another Chinese blogger, Plod(net name), also blogged to say “sigh” to this case.