The 9th Circuit just handed down a decision in United Fabrics v. C&J Wear, holding that the owner of a copyright certificate does not have the burden of proving that he owns a valid copyright, rather that burden is on the party challenging the copyright. The decision also discusses publication requirements in unpublished collections, which is worth a read by its own.
In regards to the presumption issue, the Court held:
By repeatedly mentioning that United provided “no evidence,” we are skeptical that Macy’s understands that it bears the burden of providing “some evidence” of invalidity. Regardless, Macy’s cites no authority that such facts rebut the presumption of copyright validity. Thus, Macy’s does not get very far with its argument that United’s copyright is invalid because “[United] did not produce any evidence that the person who assigned the [D]esign was a ‘duly authorized agent.’ ” United did not have to produce any evidence. As the copyright claimant, United is presumed to own a valid copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), and the facts stated therein, including the chain of title in the source artwork, are entitled to the presumption of truth. 3 M. NIMMER & D. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 12.1 [C] (2005). By failing to point to any evidence indicating that the copyright was invalid, see, e.g., Lamps Plus, 345 F.3d at 1144, Macy’s has failed to rebut the presumption.
By repeatedlymentioning that United provided “no evidence,” we areskeptical that Macy’s understands that it bears the burden ofproviding “some evidence” of invalidity. Regardless, Macy’scites no authority that such facts rebut the presumption ofcopyright validity.[3] Thus, Macy’s does not get very far with its argumentthat United’s copyright is invalid because “[United] did notproduce any evidence that the person who assigned the[D]esign was a ‘duly authorized agent.’ ” United did not haveto produce any evidence. As the copyright claimant, United ispresumed to own a valid copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), andthe facts stated therein, including the chain of title in thesource artwork, are entitled to the presumption of truth. 3 M.NIMMER & D. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 12.1 [C](2005). By failing to point to any evidence indicating that thecopyright was invalid, see, e.g., Lamps Plus, 345 F.3d at1144, Macy’s has failed to rebut the presumption.
The decision is embedded below:
United v. CJ Wear
