"Because he is a student, Mr Baker should ask himself some questions about how the design in question was created & how the rights were secured to know the provenance:  Was this nightlight developed as part of a student project for SCAD?  If the answer is yes, the actual owner of the design (and all photography) is actually SCAD.  This is standard for design schools because the work that individuals create as part of a curriculum was not independently conceived but was a commissioned task by a professor with the eventual goal of obtaining a degree.  Mr. Baker could be liable to SCAD if he were to attempt to sell the design.  It seems supremely unfair but is entirely legal.  If it wasn't for a student project, was this design/photography shown on any social media?  Again, another area that by agreeing to terms & conditions of the site, the ownership of the photos at the very least has transferred from the designer to the social media site.  Lastly, did the Mr. Baker do anything to secure the rights to the design?  It can be something as simple as having a notarized copy of the design with date mailed back to himself without opening the envelope (aka the Poor Man's Patent).  This type of protection identifies the date & time of the design (it's provenance) and gives a legal timeframe that can be adjudicated.  Adding a copyright symbol to the design without actually registering it does not hold up legally.I agree with Noodle Time, the potential payout is far less than the cost of the lawyer and actually would likely not even be considered as a credible threat because AliExpress is a Chinese company that isn't known for upholding property rights of designers and international law is more concerned with knock-off iPhones than niche products."