Re: Justice draws nigh

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 3:31 PM, RJack wrote:
> > BUT in order to REGISTER a derivative work as a whole more is
> > required -- OWNERSHIP is required.
>
> You own copyrights in a work when you have created all or part of
> that work.
>
> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane> McFarlane’s
> registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in
> Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own
> contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices
> did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to
> a suit to enforce a copyright.

Here is more of your SEVENTH CIRCUIT quote:
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>

":The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a
suit to enforce a copyright. More precisely, an application to register
must be filed, and either granted or refused, before suit can be
brought.17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

There is an interesting question, left open in our recent decision in
Chicago Bd. of Education v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir.
2003), and unnecessary to decide in this case either, whether if
registration is granted by mistake the registrant may nonetheless sue.

All that is important in this case is that it is no more the purpose of
registration to start statutes of limitations running than it is the
purpose of the copyright notice itself to do so."

Why didn't you include the full context highlighted above?
". . .and unnecessary to decide in this case either, whether if
registration is granted by mistake the registrant may nonetheless sue."
Do you call that legal authority?

I am puzzled by your position. The defendants in Best Buy et. al. have
denied Andersen's ownership of BusyBox. The burden is on Andersen to
prove his ownership. What's your point? That the SFLC and Andersen
are blithering idiots when they can't prove ownership of BusyBox?

Sincerely,
RJack :)