Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote:
> 1) The link:
> <http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html>
> isn't my link
> <http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html>

But they are discussing the same case.

> 2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, "... when the Supreme
> Court does reverse" ?

Yes. That refers to "The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of
general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do." It does
not refer to "SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register
the other versions."

> 3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) decision
> concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not
> registration of ongoing derivative works.

Again, that does not refer to "SG’s remedy for other infringements
is to register the other versions."

> So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about?

As my cite states, the court found that SG was entitled to an
injunction against copyright infringement for those versions
of its work that it had registered. If it wanted injunctions
for infringement against the other versions, it could get those
by first registering those versions and then filing a claim.

This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way. Even if a court
chooses to enjoin only registered versions of GPLed programs
from being copied and distributed unless the GPL is honored, the
remedy for a copyright holder is simply to register the version
so being copied and distributed and then file for injunction.