On 12/13/2011 07:24 PM, Topher Fischer wrote: > Dear Mr. Cullen > > You are using a work that I own the copyright of. The work involved is > the name, “Topher”. I have reserved all rights to this work, which was > first published in June of 1980. > > Your copying and or use of my work is unauthorized. You neither asked > for nor received permission to use the piece nor to make or distribute > copies of it in the manner you have. Furthermore, you have taken credit > for my work and caused confusion as to whom the original author of the > work is. Therefore, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights > under 17 USC §101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as > high as $100,000. Further, such copyright infringement is a direct > violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and International > Copyright Law. > > I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of the work > and all copies of it, that you remove any further works you may have > stolen and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my > rights in the future. Furthermore, I demand that you post an apology on > the site clarifying who the real author is and that you inform others > that might have been misled by your misuse of the works’ origins. > > If I have not received proof of compliance from you within 72 hours, I > shall consider taking the full legal remedies available to rectify this > situation including contacting my lawyer and/or your site’s administrators. > > Sincerely, > > Topher Fischer > In response to Mr. Fischer,
As (il)legal and (un)recognized counsel to Mr. Cullen, it is my duty to respond to your claims of copyright infringement as stated in your complaint dated December 13, 2011. After reviewing said complaint it is our opinion and belief that Mr. Fischer's use of the work in question does not constitute copyright infringement as: (1) A name, and by extension a pseudonym, is not a copyright work as defined in 17 USC S.S. 101, (2) International court opinion additionally holds that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work, (3) The work in question is best described as an idea as set forth in 17 USC S.S. 102, and as such is explicitly excluded from copyright protection. Therefore the complaint in question is without form or basis. Sincerely, ;-Daniel Fussell -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
