[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Justice draws nigh

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Justice draws nigh
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:55:46 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/15/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:
This ruling from the SDNY exposes the fallacy of your position: "3.
 Errors, Misstatements and Omissions in the Copyright Registration.
 Jewelex next alleges that Eyal does not hold a valid copyright in
 the jewelry design at issue in this case because the registration
 application fails to comply with the requirements set forth in 17
 U.S.C. §§ 409 (7) - (9) and (11). . ."

Are you joining your fellow crank in posting references which directly contradict your thesis? You quote the court's summary of the
 complaint without quoting court's disagreement with it?


Assuming arguendo that Eyal’s registration application contained errors, misstatements, or omissions in one or more of the respects urged by Jewelex, that does not resolve the ultimate question before
 the Court.

The ultimate question the Court must resolve is whether an error, misstatement or omission in an application for registration invalidates the copyright. Courts considering the issue have generally followed a liberal approach to upholding erroneous registration applications. ... In sum: after considering each of Jewelex’s contentions that Eyal’s copyright registration is invalid, I conclude that they do not, singly or in combination, entitle Jewelex to summary judgment based upon the invalidity of the registration in suit.

Why not refer to the relevant point Hyman? You claim that Andersen's
Copyright Office registration of BusyBox v. 0.60.3 with its
contributions from multiple authors is valid. I say it isn't. So read
the relevant part of the decision:

"Jewelex argues that Eyal failed to specify the correlation between the
jewelry designs within the collection as required by 17 U.S.C. § 408(c)
of the Copyright Act, and therefore the copyright is invalid. The Act
permits registration of multiple related works under a single
copyright application. 17 U.S.C. § 408(c)(2) provides:
(2) Without prejudice to the general authority provided under clause
(1), the Register of Copyrights shall establish regulations specifically
permitting a single registration for a group of works by the same
individual author, all first published as contributions to periodicals,
including newspapers, within a twelve-month period, on the basis of a
single deposit, application, and registration fee, under the following

Hyman, look at the relevant material:

"... a single registration for a group of works by the same individual

Are you so cognitively impaired that you can't understand that BusyBox

1) "a single registration"
2) "for a GROUP of works"
3) "by the SAME INDIVIDUAL author,"

Most reasonably intelligent people would effortlessly conclude that the
registration of BusyBox v. 0.60.3 is not "a single registration for a
group of works by the same individual author" (except you of course).

The Copyright Act does not allow an individual to register a work that
he does not own. Is that so hard to grasp?

RJack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]