geni wrote:
2008/10/8 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
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