Heh,that poor miserable employee who probably thought nothing of copying a cool maze off the Internet.(Not to imply that makes it any less illegal)
That's certainly got to be interesting/validating for the op though (albeit simultaneously violating/annoying).
Definitely curious to hear how Kraft responds; if op is willing to share even more about something he shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place that is.
Working for a media related company or similar he will have been told not to do that sort of thing, officially at least (it'll be in the company handbook which he'll have signed a document stating he has read and understood) - so yes if he is still there he'll get some of the fallout.
The company should have checks and balances on such things though, so they can't blame a sole individual and wash their hands of it without recall of the item and/or recompense to the creator they've copied.
Yes. More than one person's hands at the company are almost assuredly dirty here. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.
No consumer packaged goods company, least of all a giant like Kraft, puts anything onto a box without many layers of approval and rounds of creative review. In this case, the buck presumably stops with the brand manager for the Mac & Cheese product. I doubt he or she would have even thought to ask about the IP origins of the maze when conducting creative review. Nevertheless, he or she bears some responsibility as the owner of the review process.
Most likely this maze was lifted and passed off as original by someone a bit lower down the food chain: an agency staffer, a freelance designer, or an artist at the company. But there is virtually no scenario in which that person's contribution wasn't reviewed a half-dozen times by people with managerial authority. At CPG companies, the package is an incredibly important and borderline sacred thing. Nothing gets onto the package by accident, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for Kraft to argue its way out of responsibility.
Another possibility is that Nickelodeon (the owner of Spongebob) provided the artwork, including the maze, to Kraft. This makes identifying the proximately responsible party a bit trickier, but Kraft still bears a burden. It would also mean that two companies, and possibly two brand managers, had eyes on this.
As you say, it could be some freelance designer or artist whom they commissioned make the maze, and that artist committed fraud against both their customer and the real producer by passing KrazyDad's work off as his own. The company can't really double-check against out-and-out fraud. (I still think they should have financial responsibility, paying the real artist what they paid the supposed artist, even if they are morally off the hook.)
IANAL, and I can't really say whether a court would hold them to have been reasonably responsible for vetting this in their review process. But I do know their review process exists, and that it's very extensive, and that a court would probably not be inclined to give them a pass for ignorance -- even if they had no idea. Even if a freelancer committed fraud against them in passing this off as his own, they are economic beneficiaries of the artwork. So I don't think (?) they'd get a pass. (Would actually welcome a lawyer's input on this thread w/r/t that scenario. EDIT: A lawyer has joined in.)
Whatever the case may be, Kraft should do the right thing here. That probably means paying KrazyDad a fee or royalty of some kind, commensurate with the standard that they'd pay a typical artist whose original work graced their package. They should also issue a formal apology and pledge to improve their review process.
If Nickelodeon / MTV Networks was also involved, things get messier, and maybe there's a he-said, she-said dynamic that plays out. In any event, none of these folks are dummies. I sincerely hope, and would even expect, that they'll contact KrazyDad to make remedy.
In these circumstances, the company will have committed the copyright infringement also by virtue of reproducing the maze on the packs, and will therefore be exposed to a potential suit (assuming the other requirements of copyright infringement are able to be shown).
At the same time, the company will have taken an indemnity from the freelancer which means they can go against the freelancer for costs arising from a third party claim of infringement (as is the case here). This would give the company the ability to settle with the third party and then go against the freelancer for the sums.
The principal problem with this is that the freelancer is unlikely to have assets to back the indemnity (unless as a condition of their provision of work they were required to have in place insurance). Even with insurance of course, it may not be available if the freelancer has behaved fraudulently...
It is your responsibility to know the license (or lack of) for materials you publish.
In a case as described there may be some sort of indemnity clause between the publisher (kraft) and the freelancer which passes the costs on to the freelancer under these circumstances.
That's certainly got to be interesting/validating for the op though (albeit simultaneously violating/annoying).
Definitely curious to hear how Kraft responds; if op is willing to share even more about something he shouldn't have had to deal with in the first place that is.