SAMS3D, Sorry to hear this nastiness is happening to you and Mike. Obviously there are people out there with little scruples and morale values, always at the ready to make a quick dollar off the sweat and hard work of other peoples backs. I have had some copyright legal entanglement problems in the past where the perp had a lawyer. Unfortunately in my case at least, the entire issue revolves around money from top to bottom but I managed to win in the end since my aggressiveness showed I had the tenacity and willingness to take the issue to a conclusive end.

Basically the way its set up is if you have registered your work or works with the Copyright Office you stand a better chance of reversing legal fees and expenses and collecting royalties and damages than if you didnt register your work. In many situations, none registered work copyright infringement may get the perpetrator to cease and desist only, except perhaps in the most obvious criminal situations can the owner get any restitution for their efforts.

There have been many cases in which someones original work has been picked apart and changed so as to get over the copyright issue and these are more difficult to establish in singular occurrences than say, someone who systematically and continuously does this since in doing so, establishes the modus operandi and leaves a trail of bread crumbs making it easier to show culpability in court. Which is what your situation sounds like.

Obviously the copyright laws have changed over recent years. It would be prudent to seek recent and up to date information on the subject. As already has been mentioned, there is a copyright forum here in Renderosity you can visit. There are also many books on the subject of art and copyrighting procedures on the market. The Tad Crawford books are readily available: Legal guide for the Visual Artist the professional handbook and Business and Legal Forms for Fine Artists are two I have in my procession. You can also gain access to more information here:

California

California Lawyers for the Arts
Fort Mason Center
Building C. Room255
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 775-7200

or

1549 11th Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 395-8893

Illinois

Lawyers for the Creative Arts
213 West Institute Place, Suite 411
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 944-2787

New York

Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts
1 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022
(212) 319-2787

The American Council for the Arts
(paintings, sculpture, drawing crafts, photography and mixed media)
Hotline: 1-800-232-2789 Monday-Friday from 2-5 P.M. East Standard Time.

LOLDISCLAIMERit has been a while since my particular problem and most of this information comes from dated resources so some access information may have changed since then. Try them at your own risk.

Some snippets from Legal Guide for the Visual Artist the professional handbook by Tad Crawford 3rd Edition Copyrighted 1995:

Artists should never feel intimidated, helpless or victimized. Legal and business considerations exist from the moment an artist conceives a work or receives an assignment.(Page7)

Ideas, titles, names and short phrases are usually not copyrightable because they lack a
sufficient amount of expression. Ideas can be protected by contract as discussed on page 88. Likewise style is not copyrightable, but specific pieces of art created as the expression of a style are copyrightable.

Computer programs and the visual images created through the use of computers are both
copyrightable, unless the image is uncopyrightable (for example, because it is a typeface
or a basic geometric shape)

In August of 1985 Conservative Digest was acquired by a new publisher and, subsequently changed the look of its cover to bear a close resemblance to the cover of Reader's Digest. This new look for Conservative Digest was publicized at a press conference held at the National Press Club where a copy of the October 1985 issue was displayed. The editor-in-chief stated that if Conservative Digest "looks like Reader's Digest, I'm sure that Wally and Lila are somewhere up there saying, 'That's great, kids. Keep it up. Wally and Lila were DeWitt Wallace, the founder of Reader's Digest, and his wife.

Whatever Wally and Lila might have thought, Reader's Digest warned Conservative Digest not to use such a similar design. Despite the agreement by Conservative Digest not to use the design after the October and November issues, Reader's Digest brought suit for copyright infringement. The two covers appear in black and white as figures 1 and 2 on page 244.

Before the court could conclude that an infringement had taken place, it had to decide
whether the cover of Reader's Digest was copyrightable. The court's opinion is quite interesting on this point: "None of the individual elements of the Reader's Digest cover - ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors - qualifies for copyright protection. But the distinctive arrangement and layout of these elements is entitled to protection as a graphic work."

Finding the two designs substantially similar and noting that Conservative Digest had access to the Reader's Digest cover and thus could have copied it, the court upheld the determination that there had been a copyright infringement. However, since Conservative Digest had already stopped the infringement, the award for copyright infringement was only $500. The court refused to award attorney's fees. Under the trade dress provisions of the Lanham Act, the court ordered that Conservative Digest make no further use of the two offending covers from October and November. (The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. v The Conservative Digest, Inc., 642 ESupp. }44,aff'd 821 E 2d 800)

Multimedia works, which combine two or more media, are becoming more prevalent, especially with the advent of CD-ROM disks and players. Such works are certainly copyrightable.(Pages 10-11)

Hope Im not hit for copyright infringement since I disclosed the sources fully and if anything, I helped publicize Mr. Crawfords handbook.