1. At least in the U.S., this is clearly fair use [1] [EDIT: for purposes of copyright law], first because the use is "transformative," and second because it will have zero impact on the market for authorized copies (or displays or performances) of (i) the original copyrighted work, namely the Amazon Web site; or (ii) licensed derivatives of the Amazon Web site. See the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the "Oh Pretty Woman" parody case in which rappers 2 Live Crew prevailed [2].

2. If Amazon were to sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, the judge likely would toss out the case under the Supreme Court's Twombly/Iqbal doctrine [3], assuming Dubost filed a motion to dismiss --- I can't imagine how Amazon could plead a plausible case that the infringement had affected its market, as would be required by Twombly/Iqbal.

3. In the unlikely event that Amazon did sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, if Dubost won, he might very well be able to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from Amazon [4].

4. The resume suggests that Philippe Dubost is in Paris, so Amazon could sue in France for infringement of the French copyright; I don't know what the outcome would be in that case.

5. If someone at Amazon did want to file suit for infringement, the marketing people should throw their bodies in front of the train, because Amazon would be widely mocked. If anything, the resume's mimicry of the Amazon style provides (incremental) validation of Amazon's status as a First World icon.

5A. [EDIT:] On the trademark side, Amazon might have a plausible case against Dubost for "dilution" of a famous trademark, namely the totality of the Amazon Web site's look and feel. [5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal#Rule_8_pleadi...

[4] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#505

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?

> Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?

Addressing U.S. law only, and continuing the paragraph numbering of my comment above:

6. Dubost's fair use of Amazon's copyrighted work should not affect Amazon's copyright, even if Amazon didn't sue for infringement.

7. Dubost would have a copyright of his own, but only as to the "original" material that he contributed in his "fork" of Amazon's page; he would have no claim to copyright in Amazon's underlying work.

This has clearly been infringed on for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; vis-a-vis, employment.

Amazon's monetary losses over this offense must be immeasurable. Jail time or crippling life-time debt could be the only satisfactory retribution.

/s

what is this, r/technology?

"No copyright infringement intended" means "I have no idea what copyright is". Altogether a dumb thing to put on a resume.

You wanna know why copyright infringement is a big deal? Two words: vicarious liability.

If you hire someone who has no idea how copyright works, and in the course of their employment with you they go ahead and infringe someone's IP, you're liable.

Yeah, this is the biggest black mark on an otherwise well done resume. It's especially problematic if the OP is trying to qualify for a job in marketing and product management.

The caveat at the bottom should not use the hokey "not intended" phrase. It should say that the site is meant as parody and is not at all a representation of Amazon nor endorsed by Amazon.

Yes, that seems pedantic, but the law is pedantic.

Otherwise, very well done and I hope the OP gets a good job as a result.

"No copyright infringement intended". Isn't the act of copying Amazon's style intended copyright infringment?

Seems to be so. I've only seen similar disclaimers on (copied) Youtube music videos before. This might be the copyright version of "I am not a [racist|homophobe|...], but ...".

Those youtube disclaimers always make me laugh. "I don't own the copyright to this", so why are you posting it then?

Obviously it's because they are confused about copyright

He could probably argue it's a parody, in which case it's not really infringement. But saying "no copyright infringement intended" is like saying "Hey, potential employers! I don't know how copyright works!"

Seems like this would fall under the satire distinction.

A better statement would be that it is intended as satire, to comment on current state of our society and so on.

I don't think it is satire; I think it's just a cool idea for a résumé.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you're saying. Call it satire and it's ‘fair use’

You're right, I'll edit this part, thanks

> "No copyright infringement intended" is not a thing.

It isn't a legal thing. I look at it as a social signal: "I am not trying to be a dick here."

Remember that the copyright holder has to actually take action. When I find my copyrighted stuff borrowed, my reaction depends a lot on who's doing it and why. If somebody basically says, "Hey, I don't totally get this copyright thing, but I'm trying to do it right," that would make me more willing to contact them and work things out amicably.

Could there be a language/culture barrier thing going on? YouTube seems to be clear that, whenever you use a copyrighted item in any way, you have to say "No copyright violation intended". It's possible he may think that is how Americans say, "I'm making a parody and not trying to profit directly from your work".

Not impossible, but also most sensible people won't think "some people on YouTube seem to think this works, so I'll do that" any more than they'll go to Yahoo Answers to find out the proper approach... there's just so much obvious foolishness on display.

This is the first article I recall reading on that subject

http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/

Regardless of whether this is or isn't free use, the author clearly doesn't understand the most basic principles of copyright. That ignorance could easily sink a small company. No hire.

Wow! That is one cynical stance right there.