gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden


From: RJack
Subject: Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:49:50 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <address@hidden> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it
is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the
right to sue, not the actual authors.

Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?

Here on this mailing list in your articles.  I think you have written
often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his copyright, he needs to have registered it.

So where'd the "...  not the actual authors" come from Alan?

The other side of that coin is that it is the registered copyright
holder who can sue.

The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge
that copyright registration should they wish.

The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright
registration.

Wierd.  Why do they have this standing?  It would appear to be none
of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... do you mean if I sued you for copyright infringement
you wouldn't be curious about the work I claim that you copied? Hmmm...

It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in
shouldering the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to
enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the
authors have assented.

So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a
copyright dispute?  My understanding of your posts is that it is the
registered copyright holder.  Would you please clarify.

The copyright registration must be filed in the name of the *owner* of
the copyrighted work.

See:

"17 USC § 408. Copyright registration in general
(a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the
first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which
the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the
subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of
copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration
of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit
specified by this section, together with the application and fee
specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition
of copyright protection."

An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his
work to a new owner but the original author remains the "author" of record.

See:

"17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
categories:..."

"17 USC § 101 A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
but not including a nonexclusive license."

The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license.


Sincerely,
RJack



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]