C.P.G. § 4.5 — Petty Infringement (Unauthorized Use of Another's Creative Work)
Class A Pettiness Misdemeanor“A person is guilty of Petty Infringement when they use, copy, repost, remix, or republish a creative work — a video, photograph, recording, writing, or artwork — that another person created or owns, without that person's permission. Use of the work to promote a business, product, or service is an aggravating circumstance. Ignorance of the creator's identity is NOT a defense: one who does not know whose work it is, knows it is not their own.”
Definitions
- “Creative work”.
- As defined in § 1.2, including works depicting the complainant's children, pets, cooking, or interpretive dance.
- “Remix”.
- A copy with feelings. Still a copy.
Elements (proof required: a preponderance of the evidence)
- The complainant created or owns the work
- The accused used, copied, reposted, remixed, or republished the work, in whole or in part
- The owner did not give permission
Recognized defenses
- The License Defense — permission was actually granted, provable by words to that effect
- The Wrong Plaintiff Defense — the work is not the complainant's creation or property
- The Independent Creation Defense — the accused made their own, and can show it
Degrees
- First degree: The work was used to promote a business, product, or service, or otherwise for petty profit.
- Second degree: Personal, non-commercial use without permission.
Aggravating circumstances
- A watermark or credit was cropped, blurred, or painted over
- The work went viral in the accused's hands while the creator watched from home
Mitigating circumstances
- Prompt, voluntary takedown BEFORE any complaint was made
- Full and prominent credit given from the moment of posting
Leading cases
- Juulsgaard v. McCabe (2026) — The landmark. An admission of use decides the case; 'we can totally take it down' is a party admission, not hearsay; and a post-hoc takedown offer mitigates the sentence, never the guilt.
- In re The Viral Remix (2026) — 'It was going viral' is a description of the harm, not a defense to it.
Sentencing guideline: Immediate takedown, public credit to the true creator, surrender of petty profits traceable to the work, and a written apology. Offers to take the work down made only AFTER being caught mitigate the sentence; they never excuse the use.
Sentences this court has been known to hand down
- immediate takedown of the work from every page, platform, and story highlight, verified within 48 hours
- a public correction post crediting the true creator, pinned for thirty (30) days
- surrender of all petty profits traceable to the work, calculated generously in the creator's favor
- a handwritten apology to the creator (and to any persons depicted), read aloud with eye contact
Commentary: An homage to real copyright law (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 504): the exclusive right to a work belongs to its creator, and even 'innocent' infringement — not knowing whose work it was — merely reduces the damages; it never excuses the use. 'It was going viral' has never been a defense anywhere.