Copyright and the Case of the Hobo Snails

Last week, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) handed down another final determination, this one in the case of Chalas v. Freeman. 

The case features two artists who created two separate pins, both featuring hobo snails. 

It’s an unusual case that I touched on in June 2024. However, the case is now concluded, with the CCB dismissing the claim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

But, while a case about hobo snails is amusing, the case is also a test of the CCB. It addresses serious copyright issues, including whether the alleged infringer had access to the original work, whether two works are significantly similar and so forth.

It’s a “silly” case with serious implications, and the board’s analysis is both deep and interesting. It’s also a reminder that, while the CCB may be a “small claims court” for copyright decisions, it remains a serious legal institution capable of parsing such questions effectively.

Background of the Case

In May 2009, artist Lauren Chalas published an image titled The Roving House Snail, which features a right-facing snail carrying a white-and-red polka-dot bindle. Over time, Chalas began selling this image in various formats, most notably on pins that she sourced from a third party.

In February 2024, Chalas became aware of artist Laura Feeman’s similar work. She, too, was selling a pin featuring a snail carrying a white-and-red polka-dot bindle. However, hers was facing left and was more cartoonish in style.

Chalas quickly filed a DMCA notice, but Freeman responded with a counternotice. According to Freeman, she had created her version in January 2021 and was completely unaware of Chalas’ work at the time.

Shortly after that, Chalas filed her claim with the CCB, alleging that Freeman had infringed her design. Freeman filed a response to the claim in June 2024, among other things, highlighting various other snails with bindles in popular culture, including several with red-and-white polka dot cloth.

Over the next six months, both sides provided evidence. Though the case dragged on and some deadlines were extended, both sides had submitted all the necessary evidence by late January 2025.

In June 2025, the CCB drafted a proposed statement of fact. Neither side contested it before the July deadline. However, before the CCB could issue a final determination, it was affected by the US government shutdown in October and November of that year.

As such, the final determination was just issued, more than two years after the claim was initially filed.

Understanding the Findings

The CCB dismissed Chalas’ claims with prejudice. However, it did so on two separate grounds.

First, the board said that Chalas did not prove that Freeman had access to her work. Chalas had argued that Freeman likely found her work from her Instagram account or other social media. 

According to the CCB, since Chalas had no direct evidence of access, she needed to prove her case by showing the similarities between the two works. However, that was the second point on which her case failed.

When analyzing the substantial similarity between the works, the board found that, although the ideas were the same or similar, the execution differed. According to the board, the similarities between the works could be explained by coincidence, and that, while the idea was the same, ideas aren’t protectable under copyright.

Simply put, other than both designs featuring a snail with a similar bindle, the works differed in style, level of detail, and realism of the snail. The similarities between the works are tied to the anatomy of snails and the general idea, neither of which is protectable. 

As such, the board ruled that Freeman had not infringed on Chalas’ work and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Why Did It Take So Long?

When looking at the public record of this claim, something stands out immediately as odd. The final witness statement was submitted in January 2025, but the proposed finding of fact was not published until June 2025, and the final determination was not published until March 2026.

Why did it take over a year for the CCB to publish a final determination? 

Some of this can be blamed on the government shutdown in October/November of 2025. During that time, the CCB was closed, and no claims were moving forward.

However, much of the delay was likely due to Freeman’s December 2024 lawsuit against Chalas in the Western District of Washington State. That lawsuit didn’t target any copyright issues. Instead, it sought a declaration that Freeman had not infringed any trademarks or violated Massachusetts law. 

Note: The CCB never says that this is the reason for the delay. However, since the CCB is bound by federal court decisions, it’s reasonable that it wanted to wait for this case to be fully resolved before moving forward.

The case was eventually dismissed in October 2025 when Chalas provided a covenant not to sue on those issues. However, that dismissal came right as the aforementioned government shutdown was beginning, likely pushing the case further to the back burner for the board.

While I understand Freeman’s decision to proactively file this lawsuit, it ultimately defeated much of the CCB’s purpose and likely put the case on hold pending the outcome.

If the goal was to expedite the case so she could resume selling her pin, it may have had the opposite effect.

Bottom Line

After reviewing the case and the documents, I walk away feeling some degree of sympathy for both sides. 

I don’t believe Chalas was malicious in her filing of the claim. Though she was mistaken and I agree with the board’s ultimate decision, it’s easy to see how someone, especially a layperson, could feel like Freeman’s pin was an infringement.

As I discussed earlier, humans are trained to see patterns in familiar things. Nothing is more familiar than our own work, especially something so core to her brand and name. Chalas is far from the first artist to do exactly this. 

But I also understand Freeman’s anger about this accusation. I believe her when she says she created her work independently. Being accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement is both hurtful and stressful. Freeman’s desire to clear her name is completely understandable, and it is easy to see why she pursued it aggressively.

In many ways, this story is something of a perfect storm. While that is cold comfort for both parties, it’s a truth that sometimes two people can see the same set of facts completely differently. That’s why we have courts and the CCB to resolve such disagreements.