Copyright infringement on a work that also has copyright infringement?

[LucioFulci]

Hello!

I have an interesting question, that I don't know if someone has the answer.

What happens if the company "A" complains that company “B” is making a copyright infringement on a book/material registered by company “A”. But, it can be demonstrated that the book/material registered by company “A”, the information being claimed is not original and it was “copied” from another book or material copyrighted by company “C”.

How would that proceed in a legal case? If the material in the case is something "tangible", like a photo or a diagram. Because, as far as I know, copyright doesn't not protect a method or idea, it must be a tangible expression of that idea. For instance, a diagram.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Taxing Matters]

Only the person who holds the copyright in the work may successfully sue for infringement. So if C holds the copyright in, say, a photo that both A and B used without permission (and for which no fair use was involved) then C could sue both A and B for that infringement. A could not successfully sue B for infringement of the photo since it does not hold the copyright in the photo. This assumes, of course, that U.S. law applies; if you are asking about the law of some other country then you'll need to find a site that provides legal information for that country. This site focuses on U.S. law.

 

[quincy]

In what state or country are you located, LucioFulci?

Whether anyone infringed can depend on what sort of material was copied and how it was copied and for what purpose it was copied and the amount that was copied and the age of the material that was copied and if any coauthorship existed and if any licenses were issued for use by the original copyright holder ... the list of factors to consider is a long one.

A, B and C should each consult with an IP attorney for a personal comparison of the works and a review, this if any one of them fears their works have been infringed.

 

[FlyingRon]

Understand that "registration" is not required to have copyright protection in the US or any of the more than 180 other signatories of the Berne convention. Copyright exists when a creative work is fixed in some tangible form. The "information" isn't protected, only the creative expression of such.

If the information is protected by copyright, then only the owner can give up that right to another. An infringer can't (on the infringed parts). Two wrongs don't make a right as your mother used to say.

 

[quincy]

Although in the US registration of a copyright is not required, the holder of a registered copyright in a work is the presumed owner of the copyright.

Registration of the copyright in a work prior to infringement also makes the copyright holder eligible for statutory damages (plus attorney fees) should the registered work be infringed.

And the copyright must be registered prior to the copyright holder filing suit against an infringer.

 

[FlyingRon]

Although in the US registration of a copyright is not required, the holder of a registered copyright in a work is the presumed owner of the copyright.

First off you have to qualify that it was done within five year for that presumption. But that doesn't mean that the work can't be found to still be infringing.

 

[quincy]

First off you have to qualify that it was done within five year for that presumption. But that doesn't mean that the work can't be found to still be infringing.

Assuming that Lucio is in the US - which might be a big assumption - the registered copyright holder will be the presumed owner in an infringement action.

All information provided on a copyright registration application is presumed true and it will be on the defendant in an infringement suit to prove the information false.

And it is possible for there to be more than one copyright owner in a work, should for example the work be coauthored or should one or more of the exclusive rights in a work be transferred.

Here are links to copyright ownership:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title17/chapter2&edition=prelim

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-code/u-s-copyright-act/copyright-ownership-and-transfer/

It would help if Lucio would tell us where in the world he is located as there can be significant differences in the law from country to country.

 

[FlyingRon]

Which is what I said.

 

[quincy]

Which is what I freaking said.

Um ... can you say that in a nicer way, perhaps? And it is not exactly what you said.

There is a presumption with registration of a copyright that exists regardless of the passage of time. It is a rebuttable presumption.

(thanks for the edit, FR)

 

[FlyingRon]

Um ... can you say that in a nicer way, perhaps? And it is not exactly what you freaking said.

There is a presumption with registration of a copyright that exists regardless of the passage of time. It is a rebuttable presumption.

No, that is not true. The presumption only exists if the registration is done within five years of first publication.

 

[quincy]

No, that is not true. The presumption only exists if the registration is done within five years of first publication.

And that again is incorrect.

Registration within five years of publication is prima facie evidence of its validity. But there is a presumption of ownership with registration.

 

[FlyingRon]

And that again is incorrect.

17 USC 410:
In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

You may be confusing this with trademark registration which is not so contrsained.

 

[quincy]

17 USC 410:
In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

You may be confusing this with trademark registration which is not so contrsained.

Not confused at all. Read what I wrote and what you quoted.

Look at the rules of evidence for differences between inference, presumption and prima facie.

 

[FlyingRon]

No, when registered after five years, the presumption doesn't legally exist. Whether to consider registration as evidence of ownership is entirely discretionary on the court's part.

 

[quincy]

Nope. Look at the rules of evidence.

edit to add links:

Federal Rules of Evidence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Presumption
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption

Prima facie
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie

Inference
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inference