![]() We need not decide whether S.O.S.'s registration was in fact fraudulent for failing to disclose the identity of an unpublished underlying work. from enforcing its otherwise valid copyright. Payday asserts that this omission was a fraud on the Copyright Office which should be remedied by barring S.O.S. subsequently filed a supplemental registration disclosing its use of Brown Tank. identified itself as sole author of the payroll software, even though the work included the Brown Tank programs prepared by Hagen. 1989) “In S.O.S.'s initial application for copyright registration, S.O.S. Here is a case from the 9th Circuit which discussed this legal principle (noting that mere inaccuracies on a copyright application are not enough to constitute fraud which could bar an infringement claim):įraud on the Copyright Office – S.O.S., Inc. ![]() These are not always easy challenges for a defendant and it is not always easy to tell from the face of a copyright application that someone was trying to defraud the copyright office and injure the public. In other jurisdictions the defendant may have to plead some sort of prejudice. In some federal courts they may require a answer “pled with specificity” alleging all the elements of fraud. ![]() ![]() Note, it is NOT usually deemed an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. Copyright Office, this presumption of validity can be defeated. When you register a copyright, you get a certificate of registration which establishes prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of your copyright. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |