With copyright, proving loss of use and loss of income is harder... I've been avoiding this issue since I became aware of it two days ago, as I have been trying not to get involved. For the record, I do feel it is a very tragic situation, yet it could have been avoided. It is always wisest to err on the side of caution if there is ANY question of copyright. That being said, the thing that makes this case bizarre is that there is no "loss of use" or "loss of income" on the part of the original copyright holder. So how could damages be assessed in that case?