Do you agree with the final outcome? Why or why not?

the Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, et al. (2008) case has an interesting historical back- ground. When the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995, they were forced to leave their logo and brand in Cleveland. Upon settling in Baltimore, the team began to explore a new team name and brands (i.e., team logos) that might accompany the new name. Bouchat, a security guard and amateur artist, took a real interest in the team and began to draw various logos for the names the team was exploring, including a wing shield for the name Ravens. A few months later, when the team elected that name, Bouchat sent his shield drawing to the Maryland Stadium Authority, asking the author- ity to pass the drawing on to the Ravens president. if the president decided to use the shield, Bouchat wanted a letter of recognition and a signed helmet. Bouchat received no response. through a series of misunderstandings, Bouchats Shield Drawing was sent to the Stadium Authority Chairmans law office, forwarded to the Ravens temporary headquarters, forwarded to the NFl in New York, and then to the commercial artists working on the Ravens project. there is no reason to believe that the Ravens or NFl intentionally caused the Shield Drawing to be provided to the artists. Nevertheless, the Shield Drawing was provided to the artists who used Bouchats drawing as the basis for the Flying B logo (Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens et al., 2008, 693). the Ravens new logo, the Flying B, created by the National Football league Properties (NFlP), looked a great deal, if not exactly, like Bouchats submission. the Ravens were unaware that the NFlP had taken the work from a third party. Bouchat sued the Ravens and the NFlP for infringing his copyright on the shield drawing and a number of other drawings. he asked for ten million dollars (Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 2003). the court bifurcated the case, trying the liability issue first and then the damages. A jury found for Bouchat because his shield drawing had been copied. the Copyright Act (17 USC 504) entitled him to actual damages and any profits that were not taken into account in computing the actual damages. the jury had difficulty in arriving at the appropriate damage award and ended by not making an award. Bouchat appealed. he stated that he should at least get the statutory damage al- located in the law. Again, Bouchat was not clear about the actual losses he sustained from the infringement of his copyright, so the court denied monetary damages. thus, the district court affirmed the trial courts decision. in 2007, Bouchat brought suit against all licenses of the NFlP. the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, confirmed the district courts decision that statutory damages were not to be awarded because the artist had failed to register his copyright before the infringement began (Bouchat v. Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc. et al., 2007, 315).