authorship is another one aspect of ownership you can own it because you are the initial author or it might in some way the authorship could be transferred or you could author it as a work for hire and the contention as i understand it of the defendant is that mr seinfeld or some combination of the defendants are now the owners of the copyright so why are it's about why is that balderdash well because they say that mr charles has acknowledged that the case is about ownership and on the cursory has always said that it is about authorship well for it to be st of all i'm not sure that i understand th difference and secondly why does the plaintiffs have to agree that it's about authorship isn't that a question of law for the court to resolve as to what is centrally in dispute in the case i do see his number here and like you still connected i'm sorry to interrupt yes mary i think what the problem may be if he's on a cell phone you know i have tried to use a landline for this because there are more reliable and maybe just losing his connection with hi hi i'm on i'm on a lions line are you able to hear me now we're able to hear you yes thank you yeah i was saying that is that what i'm what i'm understand that you dispute it so let's get down to the point of why is the district court wrong to say that this is not a dispute about ownership of the copyright as as i look at the arguments that have been presented this is not a case in which someone is arguing oh yes of course this person has a copyright in this particular item but we didn't copy it we didn't know about it we never heard of it we may have heard of it but we didn't rely on it or use it in any way those are the those are the kinds of disputes that in which the cause of action as i understand the law  a new with each new copying but here the argument seems to be all about who is the true owner of the copyright and here there really was not any question about it with the true owner of the copyright act from the moment from the moment there's i was we're fixing a tangible movement of expression he or copyright but what if the next day what if the next day that was assigned to someone else or what if that authorship was done as a work for hire you know those situation he would not the copy right now i'm not talking here about the merits of whether those things occurred i'm talking about this is what this case is centrally about and how that impacts the statute of limitations here are your plates right that had he transferred his copyright had he signed or work for  agreement then he would no longer own them but none of that happened from me from the beginning mr charles has made it clear that he never signed a work for hire agreement that none was ever offered to him that  the true owner of the copyright is on notice that he's got a problem that people are in effect and it's sort of like a kind of patent infringement thing that the other side is using his work without authorization and is claiming that they own it once you know that why don't you have to go to court to vindicate your copyright interest well iran or i think i think the st answer that comes from the east where judge ginsburg made it quite clear that there is no that there is nothing wrong with willing to file suit if you believe that at the moment when admission is in simply not worth it because there is no money to be isn't that a little bit naive in the current entertainment environment wouldn't any reasonable person understand that a program that's being floated on internet  media that may or may not be making money now particularly when that is a product of a well known celebrity who whose name has some value is on its way to being tested as something that might well be extremely valuable to me the remarkable proposition that you can allow this to go forward and only at your convenience after the other side meanwhile has invested money in trying to develop the product and just come after them when it suits your convenience many years later the fact is that they was there was no logic to mr charles bringing this lawsuit at that at the point when mr chimes failed st he said this is a work and the seinfeld side about payment for the initial work in producing the pilot and i know that that is a distortion that the that the defendants have crew of contributions but for the work a production expenses that mr charles company mouse or had incurred that entire one hundred and seventy thousand dollars payment well for production expenses try to recoup some actual out of pockets that we had incurred but you did not understand at that point that they were claiming to own the pilot and that you did not understand at that telling me that there was at that time an active dispute not just about the abstract question of credit but about money and what money would be earned by mr charles on the back and as a result of his creative contributions you're saying that there was then a recognition by mr charles a that mr seinfeld and his people claimed to own this and b that there was back and money to be had some day perhaps and that was something that was worth negotiating arguing about and i suppose then suing about if no resolution could be reached that was satisfactory there there was there was no recognition at that time fundamental principle of copyright law which is that from the moment that mr charlie worked the things that he wrote him became the color of the copyright and nothing ever better tested it less that ownership owner the question is was there a dispute that was understood and certainly by the time of the sony streaming which was in two thousand and twelve in the summer of two thousand and twelve he was aware of the sign for was acting inconsistently with your client being the owner and no i don't know though did they whether whether or not he was the owner that's not the issue the issue is whether or not there was a dispute that was on where your client was on notice of vision notice to want him bringing a lawsuit and if there was a dispute about time and it seems evident that your son beau was acting as if he were the author and you're saying that your client was the owner it doesn't matter who is the owner the fact is that the suit was brought in till till two thousand and eighteen which is more than three years after two thousand and twelve not a bad bet in in everybody credit and certainly acting as if he were the owner producer and everything in your client does nothing so you were on notice of a claim of ownership by seinfeld that's the point other cases that either party has cited or any case that i am aware of is that in order of those cases the defendant i'm questionably and the owner of the the statute of limitations is particularly important in ownership cases because parties like sony in that quits and mr stan failed in their their business associates and investors invest a lot of money and time and creativity developing creative works and they want the certainty to know that that hard to do so and that's it and then the courts know that it's unfair to point that to lie in the weeds for years after the claims have obviously by the questions well versed in the facts not going to belabor them but it is clear that the disk or correctly held that this case is controlled by judge coolers decision and quon and based on the allegations in the complaint and as judgments indicated and there's no question that a back on a plane to skagway point here is contested ownership of the work and and judgment is actually correct case in two thousand and eighteen in a different context but when one person asserts a work for hire relationship with another that is with crystal clarity assertion that i am the owner and you are me or employee so that is about as clear repudiation of plans as ownership is as it exists in the case law of course we have much more than that  any and all claims to future future months and of course this is an active live dispute about the court issue the backbone of this case ownership the clock started he didn't sue for six years later and then of course repudiation he alleges seinfeld referred to claim that charles should expect to be compensated to his directed close quote and of course back it is a fact pattern an allegation the fact that mr sonnenfeld is a well known celebrity doesn't make him any more entitled to gather ownership without a work for hire than if he were a nobody you know in terms of the treatment and the script and the pilot nothing ever divested him of that ownership so to say that the case was about ownership is simply is simply not correct there was never any question about the fact that mr charles owned what he owned and there was no alchemy by which mr seinfeld could become the owner and pass on that ownership interest to his codefendant mr charles created things from the moment t created them he under them and nothing during his very things to mr seinfeld  mr seinfeld to claim that because mr seinfeld heard not only anything he couldn't own anything because he had created nothing he had written nothing he never claimed that he wrote anything he never claimed that he married any copyrightab contribution to the show now of course he says it's all about me i did everything including directed that that is simply not the case and there was no discovery that would have revealed exactly why the things that had happened