Things that make you go WTF #4

So this is from the Spring 2007 edition of the American Bar Association's IPL Newsletter:

Sex Toys Are Likely Too Utilitarian for Copyright Protection

ConWest Resources, Inc. v. Playtime Novelties, Inc., 2006 WL 3346226 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Plaintiff ConWest Resources, Inc. (ConWest), owner of copyright registrations in models of human penises, asserted defendant Playtime Novelties, Inc. (Playtime) was infringing its copyrights and sought a preliminary injunction. ConWest had previously licensed Playtime to manufacture and distribute the adult novelty items but terminated the relationship and contracted with another company. Playtime asserted that ConWest was unlikely to prevail on the merits, and argued that the adult novelty items were "useful articles" under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 and possessed no separable creative features, especially given that the novelty items were cast from the penises of actual persons.
The district court agreed with Playtime and denied the preliminary injunction. The district court found that the novelty items likely did not embody any creative features that were conceptually separable from their utilitarian aspects. Under the law of the Second Circuit, the independence of the utilitarian features from the artistic features is determined by whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences. The district court drew similarities to a Second Circuit case that found that mannequins of partial human torsos were utilitarian works not entitled to protection. Due to the probable lack of success on the merits, the district court denied the preliminary injunction.

In short: dildos must be shaped like dicks, otherwise they lose their functionality, therefore no copyright protection. I would have loved to see the discovery in this case. I also love the court's decision to refer to the dildos as "novelty items".

Toe pic[k]!

So some of you may recall the legendary bachelorette weekend. At some point during the drinking and debauchery, I injured my left big toenail. It turned blue and looked just lovely for a few months and then it just fell off. It slowly started to grow back (fun science fact! toe nails grow at 1/3 the speed of finger nails! now you know the answer to the Jeopardy question "This body part grows at 1/3 the speed of finger nails" "What is a toe nail?"). But instead of growing into a lovely normal nail, it grew into an ugly catawompus sort of nail. So I went to the doctor, an incredibly hot foot doctor who had to look at my festering foot and who I could not utter two syllables to except to say "Mind if I don't look while you hack at my toe?"

This is the result:

I think the hot pink bandage is the perfect summer accessory.

Sicko

So am I sick, or is the TB guy really cute? Aren't people with life-threatening illnesses supposed to be ugly?

Deposition excerpt 2

So one of the lovely claims that our judicial system affords us is a claim for loss of consortium. This basically dates to a time when a woman's duties to her husband included sexual services, and if she was hurt in any way her husband could sue to obtain the value of those services. Nowadays it applies to both men and woman and has come to have a value beyond sex (love, companionship, fuzzy bunnies, etc.).

With the law lesson out of the way, this is part of a deposition from one-half of a May/December relationship.

Q: Your husband is also claiming loss of consortium, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe for me how [the accident] has affected your sex life with your husband?
A: How do you mean?
Q: Well, for example, can you describe it in terms of frequency or quality?
A: Oh, well, there sure hasn't been a drop-off in frequency. Only in experimentation, because my jaw hurts.