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]