amicus_curious wrote:
"File for show, settle for dough" is unlikely to work here.
It is instructive to examine what the plaintiffs filed in their "contemplated motion for summary judgment": "Plaintiffs own valid copyrights in BusyBox. Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a computer programmer and beginning in 2002 he wrote and then submitted code for inclusion into the BusyBox project. Mr. Andersen is the copyright owner in his contributions to BusyBox and he registered his copyright in 2008. See, "BusyBox,v.0.60.3.", Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)." *** 1) "Plaintiffs own valid copyrights in BusyBox". The plaintiffs are "SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC." and Erik Andersen". Unless the SFLC can demonstrate that the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. owns code in the BusyBox project, the claim is a FALSE statement. Please note Second Circuit law: "[T]he Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit"; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983). *** 2) "Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a computer programmer and beginning in 2002 he wrote and then submitted code for inclusion into the BusyBox project. Mr. Andersen is the copyright owner in his contributions to BusyBox and he registered his copyright in 2008." A derivative work has a *unique* owner if and only if the preexisting author and the contributing author are the same legal entity because of 17 USC § 103(b): "§ 103 · Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." A derivative work that is authorized by a *preexisting* author and a distinct "modifying author" has no unique *owner* unless a transfer of ownership by contract of the distinct parts to a unique entity has been effected (absent a work for hire relationship). Mr. Andersen clearly does not own BusyBox by his own admission. He owns exclusive rights in *his* modifying code but unless he can show ownership of BusyBox as a derivative work, he cannot claim any exclusive right in the derivative work identified as "BusyBox v.0.60.3". Mr. Andersen has no legal right to REGISTER a work in which he holds no exclusive rights. "When an original author and an author of a derivative work are different, their respective rights are generally addressed by a contract between them.[24] In these situations, it is clear that two works have been created, requiring separate copyright registrations to preserve those rights in court." http://www.oblon.com/media/index.php?id=41#_ednref24 Sincerely, RJack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
