Portal:Review Board of the United States Copyright Office

“ Having found that the Book is not a collective work, the Board cannot accept your argument, pulled from Goodis, that the Work should be protected because it is part of a collective work that has sufficient notice in Peter Benchley’s name to protect all of the components of that collective work. ”

“ In the Second Request you assert that, while the 1909 Act requires a copyright notice that includes the name of the copyright proprietor in order to obtain copyright protection upon publication, the mere fact that the only notice in the Book was in Peter Benchley’s name – and not Roger Kastel’s – does not forfeit the Work into the public domain. ”

“ On June 18, 2013, the Office received your First Request for Reconsideration in which you requested that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 202.5 (b) , the Office reconsider its initial refusal to register the Work. ”