RJack <[email protected]> writes: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> 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. > > 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 first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which 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
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"? It seems that with every post he contradicts himself. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
