geni wrote:
2008/10/10 Ray Saintonge:
Not the wrong tense at all. If copyright is
being disputed in the
courts it's about whether the copyright prevails at times relevant to
the court action, not some time in the distant past. For a trailer it's
about the time when it is shown. The failure to register at some past
time, or the failure to post a copyright notice can easily rebut the
presumption of protection, but unless these defences are raised the
presumption stands.
Evidences? Please show that protection is presumed until a counter is found.
Such an eristic demand for evidence does not merit a response.
There is no evidence that they own the copyright
within the US.
Please
provide an argument by which they could do so.
Who are you
talking about? If someone has a legitimate foreign
copyright, it would normally apply in the USA by virtue of international
treaties, unless you want to argue that some U. S. idiosyncrasy applies.
The makers of the trailers this is fairly obvious from the context.
Since they were published in the US during the time period in question
foreign copyrights do not impact their US copyright status.
I've added back those of your comments to which I was replying since it
so obviously suggested foreign owners seeking copyright coverage of the
trailers within the US. Now you want to change your mind and say that
you were talking about US owners anyway. Is there any reason to believe
that the owners of the trailers are any different from the owners of the
film being advertised by that trailer?
Ec