"Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration "Hygiene" Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software" http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html
The case was SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Systems & Power, Inc., U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, Case No. 07Civ2700. The plaintiff, Simplex, makes fire alarm and sprinkler equipment. The defendant, ISPI, was an installer of Simplex's equipment in the New York and New Jersey areas and was granted, as part of a bankruptcy court order, a license to use Simplex's programming software to service Simplex alarm systems for ISPI's existing customers. However, ISPI began using Simplex's software to service new customers, as well. Simplex sued for copyright infringement, seeking to block ISPI from using its software to service new customers... Copyright law classifies works as "original" and "derivative" works. A "derivative" work is a work that is based on "one or more preexisting works." 17 U.S.C. ยง 101. To be fully protected, derivative works must be copyrighted separately from the original works on which they are based. In an attempt to circumvent the Court's ruling, Simplex argued that the changes it had made in the software between the serial editions of each revision were trivial, so the different editions within each revision did not qualify as "derivative" works and did not require separate copyright registration. Under Simplex's theory, because each version of the software was not a derivative work, it registration of one of the versions within each "revision" should be sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction over the entire revision. However, the Court found that the evidence at trial simply did not support the claim that the changes made in the serial editions of each revision were trivial. Second Circuit case law establishes that only a minimal degree of changes must be made for a work to be considered derivative. See Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Ostar Sifrea Lubavitch, Inc., 312 F.3d 94, 97 (2nd Cir. 2002) (to be considered original, a work must be independently created by the author and possess "at least some minimal degree of creativity."). Here, the evidence showed that there were numerous changes between different versions: For example between versions 10.01.01 and 10.50, an additional audio programming feature was added and 275 defects were repaired." Anybody still think SFLC litigation over busybox-0.60.3 (27-Apr-2002 735K) still has legs? ROFL "The Captain's scared them out of the water!" http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
