Re: Justice draws nigh

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/17/2010 10:51 AM, RJack wrote:
> "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)

This is completely irrelevant to BusyBox, because the BusyBox
copyright registration is not for a collection of separate works
but for a single collective work. There might have some been some
vague applicability if the BusyBox defendants were copying and
distributing individual components of BusyBox separately, but they
are not, they are copying and distributing the work as a whole.

The court says
<http://www.loeb.com/files/Publication/958cd8c9-1f66-4f59-99cc-04be39500f5c/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d74d06ae-abe1-4b26-9f21-0ac8a9f33c33/Eyal%20RD%20Corp%20v%20Jewelex%20NY%20Ltd%20SDNY%20Sept%202008%20den%20def%20SJ.pdf>
    In the case at bar, I conclude without difficulty that
    genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the
    jewelry designs in the 584 registration are sufficiently
    related to justify their inclusion in a single registration.
    The questions that Judge Sweet instructed his jury to answer
    in _Yurman Design_ must be answered by the jury in this case.
    These factual issues preclude Jewelex from obtaining summary
    judgment on this asserted basis of copyright registration
    invalidity.