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.
ยง 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.