A printing house made it possible for its customers to upload photos, with T-shirts printed by it, onto its website. Among the photos uploaded by the customers were pictures of T-shirts on which works made to order by an artist were printed for the purpose of printing them on T-shirts, but without the artist giving his consent to display these works on the printing house's website.
The Court accepted the creator's contention and held that he is the owner of the commissioned works and the printing house should compensate him due to copyright infringement. A creator is the first owner of the copyright in the work. However, in a commissioned work, the creator is the owner unless otherwise agreed between the creator and the commissioner, expressly or implicitly. In the absence of such consent, the copyright will remain in the hands of the creator and the commissioner will be granted a limited license for use of the work solely for the purpose for which it was commissioned. Here, soldiers commissioned drawing for the purpose of displaying them on their shirts. In the absence of any indication that the copyright was transferred to the commissioners, it remained with the creator, while the commissioners were given a license to print the works on their shirts only. Hence, the printing house had to obtain a license from the creator to display his works as part of the printing house's publication on the Internet and usage in the absence of such consent constitutes an infringement of the creator's copyrights and entitles him to compensation.