geni wrote:
2008/10/8 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
Since registration is not required, the legal
presumption is that a
published work falling within statutory definitions is copyright.
Wrong tense. We are talking about events in the past so the correct
tense would be " registration was not required" which in the US isn't
true. US law has also in the past required copyright notices.
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.
PD is
an absence of valid copyright, and that can be established in a number
of ways, the most important of which are very easy arguments. The
plaintiff still needs to establish a right of action, but owning the
copyright would not be enough to overcome the clear fair use claim.
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.
Ec