| Author | Message | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 427 Registered: 8-2009 |
One company sued another company. Neither the named plaintiff nor the named defendant were at all interested in pursuing the case, for very good reasons. What were the reasons? And what is going on here? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 527 Registered: 7-2009 |
Did they settle out of court? Was the case dropped? Did the trial actually happen? Did either party originally want to pursue the case? Did anyone change their mind? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 429 Registered: 8-2009 |
Did they settle out of court? No Was the case dropped? No Did the trial actually happen? Yes Did either party originally want to pursue the case? No Did anyone change their mind? No | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 531 Registered: 7-2009 |
Was one of the parties a government organization? Was the suing party legally bound to pursue a lawsuit? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 430 Registered: 8-2009 |
Was one of the parties a government organization? no Was the suing party legally bound to pursue a lawsuit? no | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 566 Registered: 10-2008 |
Were the planitiff and defendant's reasons the same? Were the defendant's reasons for not wanting the case to happen just the usual, i.e., fear of losing, cost of lawyers, public scandal, etc? Or did the defendant have even more at stake? Did the plaintiff have to sue to keep up a facade? To prevent illegal activity from being discovered? To follow their own professed ethics/values? To prevent public embarrassment? To keep from being sued themselves? Does it matter what kind of company the plaintiff is? The defendant? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 431 Registered: 8-2009 |
Were the planitiff and defendant's reasons the same? Almost exactly the same Were the defendant's reasons for not wanting the case to happen just the usual, i.e., fear of losing, cost of lawyers, public scandal, etc? They may have contributed, but there's an overriding reason Or did the defendant have even more at stake? Yope Did the plaintiff have to sue to keep up a facade? No, and sort of a FA To prevent illegal activity from being discovered? No To follow their own professed ethics/values? No To prevent public embarrassment? No To keep from being sued themselves? Ha, No (Sorry, don't mean to laugh, you'll see why later...) Does it matter what kind of company the plaintiff is? Yes The defendant? Yes | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 567 Registered: 10-2008 |
So, the plaintiff doesn't technically have to sue? Is it simply expected of them, so they do it? Or did a third party initiate the suit, although the company wouldn't necessarily have done so? Did certain members of the company want to sue and did so, although the majority don't want to? Are they part of a larger class-action lawsuit? Are the two comapanies both owned by the same people? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 432 Registered: 8-2009 |
So, the plaintiff doesn't technically have to sue? right Is it simply expected of them, so they do it? no Or did a third party initiate the suit, although the company wouldn't necessarily have done so? this is close, but not technically accruate Did certain members of the company want to sue and did so, although the majority don't want to? this is also very close Are they part of a larger class-action lawsuit? no Are the two comapanies both owned by the same people? No, but OTRT | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 245 Registered: 5-2009 |
Are insurance companies relevant? Could the plaintiff theoretically be a party in any lawsuit? The defendant? Does the lawsuit take place in a common law country? England? The US? Ireland? Canada? Some other former British colony? Or in continental Europe? Japan? China? An islamic country? Does the plaintiff demand the payment of money? The delivery of some other thing? An information? Another action of the defendant? That the defendant refrains from doing something? Labour law relevant? Administrative law? Intellectual property? Taxes? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 433 Registered: 8-2009 |
Are insurance companies relevant? No Could the plaintiff theoretically be a party in any lawsuit? Not sure what you mean; I suppose arguably anyone could end up in various kinds of litigation. But this particular person, and only someone like this person, would mainly tend to be involved in this type of lawsuit. The defendant? same answer Does the lawsuit take place in a common law country? England? The US? This Ireland? Canada? Some other former British colony? Or in continental Europe? Japan? China? An islamic country? no to rest, obviously Does the plaintiff demand the payment of money? yes, but beware of FAs The delivery of some other thing? An information? Another action of the defendant? That the defendant refrains from doing something? No to rest Labour law relevant? Administrative law? Intellectual property? this Taxes? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 251 Registered: 5-2009 |
Not sure what you mean I thought of institutions like town councils which (in some countries) usually can't be party in a lawsuit (the town itself would be party), but there are certain kinds of "internal" disputes (e.g. between the council and the mayor) where they can. Does the plaintiff demand to be paid himself? That someone else is paid? That the defendant accepts a payment the plaintiff (or someone else?) is ready to make? Intellectual property: Copyright? Patents? Trademarks? Trade secrets? Is the notion of "defending" an intellectual property right relevant? Could everyone (assuming he is rich enough) legally found a company like the plaintiff? Would one need some special permission/privilege? Would it make sense for a single person or family to found such a company (counter-example: a performing rights society needs lots of members to make sense)? Is the plaintiff's main business the management of intellectual property rights? The defendant's? Are any persons or entities besides the plaintiff, the defendant and the court relevant? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 436 Registered: 8-2009 |
I thought of institutions like town councils which (in some countries) usually can't be party in a lawsuit (the town itself would be party), but there are certain kinds of "internal" disputes (e.g. between the council and the mayor) where they can. No, nothing quite like this. The phrasing in the puzzle statement is fairly specific, for a reason. Does the plaintiff demand to be paid himself? Noish That someone else is paid? Noish That the defendant accepts a payment the plaintiff (or someone else?) is ready to make? No Intellectual property: Copyright? this Patents? Trademarks? Trade secrets? Is the notion of "defending" an intellectual property right relevant? yes Could everyone (assuming he is rich enough) legally found a company like the plaintiff? yes Would one need some special permission/privilege? no Would it make sense for a single person or family to found such a company (counter-example: a performing rights society needs lots of members to make sense)? not sure if it "makes sense" but it would be plausible Is the plaintiff's main business the management of intellectual property rights? The defendant's? Now you are onto something. Yes, with a bit of "ope" Are any persons or entities besides the plaintiff, the defendant and the court relevant? Yes | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 252 Registered: 5-2009 |
So does the plaintiff sue to defend a copyright? If he wouldn't sue, would he risk losing it? Or risk difficulties in enforcing it against others? Could everyone (assuming he is rich enough) legally found a company like the defendant? Would one need some special permission/privilege? Would it make sense/be plausible for a single person or family to found such a company? Does the plaintiff assert he owns a certain copyright? A licence to a copyright? Does the defendant assert he owns a certain copyright? A licence to a copyright? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 437 Registered: 8-2009 |
So does the plaintiff sue to defend a copyright? Yes, with a slight "ope" - this answer may come up a lot, for a specific reason If he wouldn't sue, would he risk losing it? Interestingly - no Or risk difficulties in enforcing it against others? no Does the plaintiff assert he owns a certain copyright? Yes, with a slight "ope" A licence to a copyright? Not sure of the distinction; same answer as above either way Does the defendant assert he owns a certain copyright? Yes, with a slight "ope" A licence to a copyright? same | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1069 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is there a third party involved without which/whom the plaintiff would not have sued the defendant? The copyright involved: does it relate to a book? Movie? Song? Piece of music? Would you say the plaintiff sued the defendant willingly, or did it feel it was somehow forced to? If no lawsuit took place, would the plaintiff lose something? Gain something? Same questions for the defendant. Same question for the third party (if any). | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 253 Registered: 5-2009 |
The plaintiff is a company. So, somebody owns (the equity of) the company? Is there one single owner? 2 owners? 3? 4 to 10? 11 to 50? 50 to 500? More? Are shares of the company traded on a stock exchange? Could the company be listed without changing its legal form? Would it be plausible for a company with the defendant's business to be listed? The defendant is a company. So, somebody owns (the equity of) the company? Is there one single owner? 2 owners? 3? 4 to 10? 11 to 50? 50 to 500? More? Are shares of the company traded on a stock exchange? Could the company be listed without changing its legal form? Would it be plausible for a company with the plaintiff's business to be listed? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 438 Registered: 8-2009 |
Great questions, Alhucema! (Not that the ones that led up to it weren't great...) Is there a third party involved without which/whom the plaintiff would not have sued the defendant? Yes The copyright involved: does it relate to a book? Movie? Song? This Piece of music? well, song, so... Would you say the plaintiff sued the defendant willingly definitely not , or did it feel it was somehow forced to? definitely so If no lawsuit took place, would the plaintiff lose something? Not materially Gain something? same Same questions for the defendant. same as plaintiff Same question for the third party (if any). ...lose something? possibly Gain something? very possibly | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1072 Registered: 11-2008 |
Thanks, Matt! :-)) Is there only one third party? Is the third party an individual? A company? Is the lawsuit about the authorship of the song? Did the third party force the plaintiff to sue? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 440 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is there only one third party? only one of consequence Is the third party an individual? yes A company? this technically, but really an individual Is the lawsuit about the authorship of the song? definitely Did the third party force the plaintiff to sue? this is probably the best way to say it, although it's still not quite techinally accurate My hedging will all make sense when it's solved (I hope). It really is a very interesting - and real - case. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 256 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does the third party (can we call the individual Steve?) claim to be the author of the song? Did Steve sell the copyright of a song (or a corresponding licence) to the plaintiff? To the defendant? Oh, and you didn't answer my questions above. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1073 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is the third party H?A?M? Relevant? Can we call the third party Sam? Is Sam the author of the song? Is there only one relevant song? Various versions of the same song | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 572 Registered: 10-2008 |
Was the plaintiff suing so that the third party could not gain rights to the song? Was the third party closely associated with the defendant's company? With the plaintiff's? Is the genre of song or specific song relevant (obviously, since it's a true story there is a specific song, but could it theoretically work with any one)? Is it "White Christmas"? Any of the Beatles' songs? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 441 Registered: 8-2009 |
Sorry, Markobr, didn't see them! (Must have popped up while I was answering...) The plaintiff is a company. This is not entirely accurate; yes a company is bringing the lawsuit, but there is a named plaintiff So, somebody owns (the equity of) the company? Is there one single owner? Yes - to be honest, I'm not sure, and it doesn't really matter, but for the sake of argument let's go with one owner. say 2 owners? 3? 4 to 10? 11 to 50? 50 to 500? More? \b)no to rest) Are shares of the company traded on a stock exchange? Could the company be listed without changing its legal form? Would it be plausible for a company with the defendant's business to be listed? probably yes to all, but largely irrelevant The defendant is a company. Same caveat - yes a company is being sued, but there is a named defendant So, somebody owns (the equity of) the company? Is there one single owner? 2 owners? 3? 4 to 10? 11 to 50? 50 to 500? More? not sure; irrelevant Are shares of the company traded on a stock exchange? Could the company be listed without changing its legal form? Would it be plausible for a company with the plaintiff's business to be listed? probably yes to all, but largely irrelevant | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 442 Registered: 8-2009 |
Does the third party (can we call the individual Steve?) claim to be the author of the song? no Did Steve sell the copyright of a song (or a corresponding licence) to the plaintiff? no To the defendant? no | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 443 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is the third party H?A?M? yes yes yes Relevant? inasmuch as this is a real event, yes Can we call the third party Sam? Sam or Steve? I'm game for either Is Sam the author of the song? no Is there only one relevant song? no Various versions of the same song some may claim this is debatable I suppose, but no | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 444 Registered: 8-2009 |
Was the plaintiff suing so that the third party could not gain rights to the song? no Was the third party closely associated with the defendant's company? no - but with an ish With the plaintiff's? YES! Is the genre of song or specific song relevant (obviously, since it's a true story there is a specific song, but could it theoretically work with any one)? the circumstances are indeed very specific; but I suppose it's possible that these unusual circumstances could happen in almost any genre Is it "White Christmas"? no Any of the Beatles' songs? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1076 Registered: 11-2008 |
Steve is OK with me, as Markobr was by one minute quicker :-)) Is Steve the heir of the copyright? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 445 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is Steve the heir of the copyright? heir? meaning he inherited it? no | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 260 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does Steve expect to gain anything because of the lawsuit? If so, money? A copyright (or licence to a copyright)? Other rights? Tangible goods? Reputation? Is Steve (or, if applicable, his company) an owner of the plaintiff company? An employee? A director? A contractor? A customer? | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2008 |
Did Steve write the song? Originally perform it? Is the plaintiff suing because Steve wants the rights? Or because Steve wants them to have the rights? Did he ask them to initiate the suit? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 446 Registered: 8-2009 |
Does Steve expect to gain anything because of the lawsuit? If so, money? A copyright (or licence to a copyright)? yes to those Other rights? Tangible goods? Reputation? perhaps these too - but mostly the former Is Steve (or, if applicable, his company no) an owner of the plaintiff company? Yes, this An employee? A director? A contractor? A customer? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 447 Registered: 8-2009 |
Did Steve write the song? no Originally perform it? no Is the plaintiff suing because Steve wants the rights? yope Or because Steve wants them to have the rights? no Did he ask them to initiate the suit? more than that | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 261 Registered: 5-2009 |
Steve is an owner of the plaintiff company. The third party is, technically, also a company (but really Steve). Is the plaintiff company identical with the technical third-party company? Does Steve want a certain individual or company to gain or get adjudicated the rights in the song? As for the named plaintiff - is he an individual? Is the named defendant an individual? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 448 Registered: 8-2009 |
Steve is an owner of the plaintiff company. The third party is, technically, also a company (but really Steve). Is the plaintiff company identical with the technical third-party company? Yes. For the sake of clarity - sorry, it's a tricky situation - "Steve" is the owner of the plaintiff company; yet the plaintiff is the, well, named plaintiff in the suit. Does Steve want a certain individual or company to gain or get adjudicated the rights in the song? Yes - his own company As for the named plaintiff - is he an individual? Yes! Is the named defendant an individual? Yes! | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 262 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the named plaintiff different from Steve? Is the named defendant different from Steve? Is at least the named plaintiff different from the named defendant? ;-) Are there any individuals, legal entities, organizations or institutions relevant besides Steve, Steve's company, the named plaintiff, the named defendant, the company associated with the named defendant, the court, and any lawyers involved in the lawsuit? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 449 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is the named plaintiff different from Steve? Yes Is the named defendant different from Steve? Yes Is at least the named plaintiff different from the named defendant? ;-) NO! Are there any individuals, legal entities, organizations or institutions relevant besides Steve, Steve's company, the named plaintiff, the named defendant, the company associated with the named defendant, the court, and any lawyers involved in the lawsuit? No, you have all the major players, just have to sort them out and figure out what's going on... | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 263 Registered: 5-2009 |
So we have an individual (maybe we shouldn't call her Sue, so let's call her Claudia) who is the named plaintiff as well as the named defendant in tha lawsuit. Is Claudia a director of Steve's company? Another employee? A contractor? Is Claudia a director of the other relevant company? Another employee? A contractor? Is Claudia the/an author of the song? Does she personally (not on behalf of one of the companies) assert any right relevant for the lawsuit? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 451 Registered: 8-2009 |
So we have an individual (maybe we shouldn't call her Sue, so let's call her Claudia) who is the named plaintiff as well as the named defendant in tha lawsuit. okay Is Claudia a director of Steve's company? noAnother employee? not anymore A contractor? no Is Claudia a director of the other relevant company? no Another employee? yes A contractor? no Is Claudia the/an author of the song? Yes! Remember though, there's more than one song involved... Does she personally (not on behalf of one of the companies) assert any right relevant for the lawsuit? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1077 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is Claudia a former employee of Steve's company? Are Claudia's and Steve's relations strictly on the arms length basis? Or rather personal? Are they lovers? Husband and wife? Relatives? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1078 Registered: 11-2008 |
Just to make sure: Steve owns the plaintiff company; however, the named plaintiff is Claudia. Claudia is an employee of the defendant company? And the named defendant as well? Now that's getting really tricky, isn't it? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is Claudia a former employee of Steve's company? yes Are Claudia's and Steve's relations strictly on the arms length basis? yes Or rather personal? Are they lovers? Husband and wife? Relatives? um, in the real story Claudia is a man! I was just going with the name since at that stage it doesn't matter much... anyway, no to all but the first | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1079 Registered: 11-2008 |
Oh, it's a pity that we did not stick to the name Sue - apart from other connotations, it would be nice to have a Boy Named Sue :-)) | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 453 Registered: 8-2009 |
Just to make sure: Steve owns the plaintiff company; however, the named plaintiff is Claudia. correct Claudia is an employee of the defendant company? And the named defendant as well? correct | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1081 Registered: 11-2008 |
So the Boy Named Claudia is suing himself? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 454 Registered: 8-2009 |
So the Boy Named Claudia is suing himself? this is the practical upshot, yes. Told you the circumstances were weird. Still all true. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 265 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the lawsuit about whether one song is derived from another song? Did Steve threaten Claudia with some other kind of legal action to make her file the lawsuit? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 456 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is the lawsuit about whether one song is derived from another song? yes Did Steve threaten Claudia with some other kind of legal action to make her file the lawsuit? no. essentially Claudia didn't file the lawsuit, Steve's company did; but Claudia was named | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1082 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does Claudia agree with the lawsuit at all? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 457 Registered: 8-2009 |
Does Claudia agree with the lawsuit at all? no, that was pretty much stated in the puzzle statement | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1084 Registered: 11-2008 |
Was Claudia against the lawsuit? Or just indifferent? Does Steve operate with the fact that Claudia was employed by his company when the song was composed? And therefore the copyright belongs to his company? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 458 Registered: 8-2009 |
Was Claudia against the lawsuit? this Or just indifferent? Does Steve operate with the fact that Claudia was employed by his company when the song was composed? correct And therefore the copyright belongs to his company? correct | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1085 Registered: 11-2008 |
OK. So Steve sues the company which employs Claudia at present over the copyright for a song Claudia composed when (s)he was an employee of Steve's company. He somehow uses Claudia's name as the damaged party. Are there any more facts for us to establish? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 268 Registered: 5-2009 |
Are there exactly two relevant songs? If so, did Claudia compose (including the possible creation of a derived work) both songs? One of the songs? None of the songs at all? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 459 Registered: 8-2009 |
OK. So Steve sues the company which employs Claudia at present over the copyright for a song Claudia composed when (s)he was an employee of Steve's company. He somehow uses Claudia's name as the damaged party. Are there any more facts for us to establish? Why is Claudia also the defendant? Other than that your summation is pretty close - Steve's company files suit on Claudia's behalf, because Steve's company owns the rights to a song Claudia wrote while employed there. Although of course, if successful, Steve's company would get the rewards, not Claudia. | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 460 Registered: 8-2009 |
Are there exactly two relevant songs?yes If so, did Claudia compose (including the possible creation of a derived work) both songs? this One of the songs? None of the songs at all? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1087 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does Claudia object that the two songs are different enough not to be considered subject to the same copyright? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 461 Registered: 8-2009 |
Does Claudia object that the two songs are different enough not to be considered subject to the same copyright? correct I'm not sure how much further we can go with this. I think this one might be ready to spoil (unless you're game to figure out who it is?) | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1089 Registered: 11-2008 |
Let's at least have a try :-)). Is "Claudia" American? EUropean? Is he still alive? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 271 Registered: 5-2009 |
So Claudia composed the first song when she was an employee of Steve's company. She either transferred/licenced the copyright to Steve's company, or it was considered work done for hire so Steve's company got the copyright anyway. Claudia quit her job and started to work for another company. She composed the second song, and her new company held the copyright (or a licence) to this song. Steve believed the second song was derived from the first one and initiated a lawsuit about this. Some rules about the naming of parties in copyright lawsuits caused Claudia to be named as plaintiff and also as defendant in this lawsuit. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1090 Registered: 11-2008 |
Did it happen in the 20th century? 21st? If so, /LTPF list of decades/? The genre of the song: Country? Rock? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 462 Registered: 8-2009 |
Is "Claudia" American? this EUropean? Is he still alive? yes | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 463 Registered: 8-2009 |
So Claudia composed the first song when she was an employee of Steve's company. She either transferred/licenced the copyright to Steve's company, or it was considered work done for hire so Steve's company got the copyright anyway. Claudia quit her job and started to work for another company. She composed the second song, and her new company held the copyright (or a licence) to this song. Steve believed the second song was derived from the first one and initiated a lawsuit about this. Some rules about the naming of parties in copyright lawsuits caused Claudia to be named as plaintiff and also as defendant in this lawsuit. This is a very good summation. Correct. They are record companies, by the way - if that's not obvious by now... | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1092 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is he older than 60? 50? 40? 30? Is he member of a group? Is he very popular? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 464 Registered: 8-2009 |
Did it happen in the 20th century? yes 21st? If so, /LTPF list of decades/? The genre of the song: Country? Rock? This. Maybe a touch of country too Is he older than 60? this 50? 40? 30? Is he member of a group? was Is he very popular? was | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1093 Registered: 11-2008 |
THe group does not exist anymore? Or he is not anymore a member? Was he most popular in the sixties? Seventies? Eighties? Nineties? Earlier? Later? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 273 Registered: 5-2009 |
Did he sing? Play an instrument? Write (other) songs himself? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 465 Registered: 8-2009 |
THe group does not exist anymore? this Or he is not anymore a member? Was he most popular in the sixties? Seventies? this Eighties? {and this} Nineties? Earlier? Later? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 466 Registered: 8-2009 |
Did he sing? Play an instrument? Write (other) songs himself? yes to all | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1094 Registered: 11-2008 |
The group: Sex Pistols? Claudia: Bob Dylan? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 467 Registered: 8-2009 |
The group: Sex Pistols? Claudia: Bob Dylan? Sorry, no to both. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1095 Registered: 11-2008 |
I suppose you don't mind if we google at this point, do you? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 468 Registered: 8-2009 |
I suppose you don't mind if we google at this point, do you? feel free! | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1096 Registered: 11-2008 |
Matthew Fisher? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 469 Registered: 8-2009 |
Matthew Fisher? No. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1097 Registered: 11-2008 |
Ozzy Osbourne? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 470 Registered: 8-2009 |
Ozzy Osbourne? no | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 274 Registered: 5-2009 |
John Fogerty? | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 471 Registered: 8-2009 |
John Fogerty? bingo ******************************SPOILER******************** John Fogerty assigned the copyright for his song "Run through the Jungle" (recorded while he was with Creedence Clearwater Revival) to Fantasy Record. Later he wrote (and recorded as a solo artist) "The Old Man is Down the Road" that was distributed by Warner Bros, that Fantasy claimed was derived from "Jungle" - essentially he was accused of pligiarizing himself. The District Court rejected Fogerty's claim that he was immune from claims of copyright infringement of "Jungle" given his interest in the economic success of the earlier work; a jury later found that "Old Man" was not unfairly derivative of "Jungle." Rolling Stone (12 January 1989) implies that this dispute was the culmination of twenty years of animosity between Fogerty and Saul Zaentz, chairman of Fantasy, Inc., the Berkeley company that owned the copyrights to most of the songs Fogerty recorded with his pop group Creedence Clearwater Revival. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1098 Registered: 11-2008 |
A nice one, Matt. Thank you. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 275 Registered: 5-2009 |
Thank you - very good puzzle. | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 574 Registered: 10-2008 |
I went to class, and it was done upon my return. Good one. | ||
| Dropofahat (Dropofahat)
New member Username: Dropofahat Post Number: 472 Registered: 8-2009 |
Thanks guys. I've been working on this one, struggling with the right way to word it (and with the temptation to include a song title or lyrics in the title). Sorry Gourami! But I'm kind of glad it went pretty quickly - I was afraid it would be difficult to establish that the plaintiff & defendant were the same person, until Markobr's seemingly offhand question. Thanks again all. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 278 Registered: 5-2009 |
I was really lucky at that point. I had noticed that the relations between the parties and interested companies must be quite complicated. I asked some questions to find out about that and added the crucial question more as a joke. I didn't know that it is even possible that plaintiff and defendant can be the same person in an American lawsuit. Well, I know that almost anything is possible in an American lawsuit... |
