In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <[email protected]> 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. 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. >> 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. > Sincerely, > RJack _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
