From: David Hansen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:09:04 -0500

Even without the written transfer, I would bet that most big
publishers go ahead and register the work with the (C) office anyway,
just as a matter of course (although they shouldn't. Cf. 17 USC 506(c)
& (e) -- fraudulent copyright notice and false representation on
registration, though these are seldom used provisions).  In court, the
registration certificate is prima facie evidence of the validity of
the facts stated on the certificate, which includes a statement about
ownership.

In terms of asking for proof under the DMCA -- the DMCA notice
requires a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining
party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive
right. But as far as I know, I think that's it.  The service provider
can ask for clarification for some enumerated reasons, but I don't
think ownership is one of them.  I do know, however, that Google
sometimes declines DMCA notices by saying " It is unclear to us
whether or not you are the authorized copyright agent for the content
in question" and asking for more information. So if Google is willing
to do it, maybe others

Interesting to learn about the "written acknowledgement" license
practice, Chuck. Contract trap indeed.

Dave

----------
David R. Hansen
Reference Librarian, UNC School of Law
Digital Library Fellow, UC Berkeley School of Law
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]