Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...2010). Courts have divided on whether the filing of an application for registration with the Copyright Office is sufficient to comply with the statutory prerequisite, or whether a certificate of registration (or formal refusal) must be issued prior to suit. See Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][3] (discussing “application” and “registration” approaches to registration timing problems).8 However, “[a]s an 8 We adopted the “registration” approach in M.G.B....

...absolute limit, if the Copyright Office has failed to receive the necessary elements to issue a registration certificate [for a United States work] prior to the time that the court is called upon to issue final judgment, the action must be dismissed.” Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][3][c]....

...organization other than the United States that is a party to an international agreement.” Id. Although registration of “foreign works” (i.e., non-United States works) is not statutorily required, foreign works can also be registered. See Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[C][1][a][iv]....

...We have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. See 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) (1994); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1338 (1994). 4 U.S.C. § 102(a); Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[A][1] (1998) [hereinafter Nimmer ]....

...public in the United States after the omission has been discovered.... See generally Donald Frederick Evans & Assocs., Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 905-06, 910-12 (11th Cir.1986); 2 Nimmer § 7.16[A][1]. Montgomery argues that his 1990 registration of, and inclusion of a copyright notice in, VPIC 2.9a occurred less than 5 years after the publication of VPIC 1.3 and its predecessors in the late 1980s....

...5 (E.D.Tex.1995) (granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim where plaintiffs registered their copyrights in certain versions of computer programs and defendants copied subsequent versions that were derived from the registered works); 2 Nimmer § 7.16[B][2] (concluding that the owner of a registered underlying work that is part of an unregistered derivative work should be able to maintain a copyright infringement suit against a defendant who reproduces the derivative work—and thus the...

...Greenwich Film Prods. v. DRG Records, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 248, 251-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that registration for motion picture was sufficient to cover musical compositions contained therein where plaintiff owned copyrights in both); 2 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 7.16[B][2][c], at 7-174 (“[W]hen the same party owns the derivative or collective work plus the underlying elements incorporated therein, its registration of the former is ‘sufficient to permit an infringement action on the underlying parts, whether they be new or preexisting.’” (quoting Xoom, Inc. v....

...o long as the owner of both copyrights is the same. See, e.g., Streetwise Maps, 159 F.3d at 747. But this theory only applies to aspects of the underlying work that are actually incorporated into the registered work. See 2 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 7.16[B][2][c], at 7- 173 n.105.7 (“The assumption is that the derivative work that is registered embodies all the features of the underlying work on which suit is premised.”)....

...at the moment it is created without regard to whether it is ever registered. See Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Drew Homes, Inc., 29 F.3d 1529, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994); 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[A][1] (1998) [hereinafter Nimmer]....

...re distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered . . . . See generally Donald Frederick Evans & Assocs., Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 905-06, 910-12 (11th Cir. 1986); 2 Nimmer § 7.16[A][1]. Montgomery argues that his 1990 registration of, and inclusion of a copyright notice in, VPIC 2.9a occurred less than 5 years after the publication of VPIC 1.3 and its predecessors in the late 1980s....

...1995) (granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim where plaintiffs registered their copyrights in certain versions of computer programs and defendants copied subsequent versions that were derived from the registered works); 2 Nimmer § 7.16[B][2] (concluding that the owner of a registered underlying work that is part of an unregistered derivative work should be able to maintain a copyright infringement suit against a defendant who reproduces the derivative work – and thus t...

"take." See Sweet Home, 115 S.Ct. at 2415 ("Section 7 [16 U.S.C. § 1536] imposes a broad, affirmative

...regard to whether it is ever registered.” Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 1999) [(citing 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Drew Homes, Inc., 29 F.3d 1529, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994); Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[A][1] (1998))]....

...ion to the United States; (8) in the opinion of the Attorney General, has within five years after entry become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen after entry____ 17 . 2 Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law & Procedure § 7.16, at p....

nonlegislative. Davis Treatise, supra, at § 7:16; Joseph, supra, 554 F.2d at 1153 n.

...This specific provision is the subject of one of the assignments of error by the appellants and will be referred to hereafter at greater length. Another provision contained in the Indenture and to which reference will now be made because it also is the subject of an assignment of error by appellants is Section 7.16, reading as follows: "Certain Projects....

...line to Daytona Beach is not in the same traffic corridor as the turnpike project is not supported by substantial competent evidence. This contention arises out of a resolution adopted by the Authority on September 13, 1961 that "for the purpose of 7.16 of the Trust Indenture that portion of Interstate Route 95 as presently proposed * * * and the portion of Interstate Route 4 as presently proposed * * * are not within the same traffic corridor as existing Turnpike Project No. 1 and Turnpike Project No. 2 as now authorized." The controversy about Section 7.16 is not germane to the question of the validity of the proposed issue of revenue bonds. The obvious purpose of Section 7.16 is to prevent the Authority from cooperating in the construction of a competing road....

...This project was abandoned by the State because of the depressed bond market and the inability of the State to sell the proposed issue of bonds at that time. [15] This point is conceded by the Authority in the following excerpt from of its briefs: "Section 7.16 of the Trust Indenture attempts nothing more than to limit the Authority's ability to give its consent to the construction of a competing road in the same traffic corridor with the Turnpike System....

Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7:16 p. 76 (1979). 16 . The Supreme Court

heart of the Endangered Species Act lies in Section 7, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, which sets forth certain requirements

...Cosmetic Ideas, 606 F.3d at 618–19; Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part by Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154; Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386–87 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Melville B. Nimmer, et al., 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][3][b][v] (2016)....

...n (or formal refusal) must be issued prior to suit.” 694 F.3d at 1301-02 . In Kernel Records, the Eleventh Circuit turned to Nimmer on Copyright to determine when a jurisdictional action for copyright infringement can proceed. Id. at 1302 . ’ In § 7.16[B][3][cj of Nimmer on Copyright, Professor Nimmer states, “Absent issuance of a certificate and in the absence of the copyright owner even having sent the requisite application (together with deposit, and fee) to the Copyright Office, there is, under all viewpoints, a defect under the statute (with respect to United States works that require registration).” 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,' Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][3][e] (Matthew Bender, rev....

...guage. But "Congress passed the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1998 with explicit direction to courts that they should apply the law that it drafted, not look to vindicate propositions of the Berne Convention directly." 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][6][e], at 7-190.8(2) (criticizing the decisional approach taken in Moberg; 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.12[A], at 1-167-1-169 (discussing and citing to provisions in the Berne Convention Implementation Act, Pub.L....

“take.” See Sweet Home, 115 S.Ct. at 2415 (“Section 7 [16 U.S.C. § 1536] imposes a broad, affirmative

...842 (1925); 1 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning §§ 7.13, .17 (2d ed. 1976). In fact, initially, "[a]esthetic considerations were held insufficient to support use of the police power to impose even modest limitations upon the location of [billboards]." Id. § 7.16....

...by failing to obtain assurances from contractors, suppliers, and materialmen that they were receiving loan proceedings for the work performed. [9] 38 Am.Jur.2d Guaranty § 59; 37 Am.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 147. Stern's Law of Suretyship (5th ed.) § 7.16; 28 Fla.Jur.2d Guaranty § 47; Lambert v....

...he owner of a copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright.... Such a registration is not a condition of copyright protection. (emphasis supplied); see also M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[A], (1992)....

...nd changes, as long as the modifications and changes do not alter the overall size or integrity of the unit and any changes are such that the materials are at least of equal quality. The Florida Bar, Florida Condominium and Community Association Law § 7.16 (2007)....

...at Valencia "has entered or will enter into an agreement" with the appellee, Community Resource Services, Inc. ("CRS"), for the provision of effluent (treated wastewater) for irrigation to Valencia Golf and Country Club. In addition, article VII, section 7.16 of the Master Declaration asserts that Orangetree HOA "has entered into an Agreement to supply the residential dwelling owners with cable television services." In 2014, a dispute arose between the parties over the provision of irrigat...

29, DE 36-3.) The Town has a policy found at section 7-16 of the personnel manual which allows for reasonable

“take.” See Sweet Home, 115 S. Ct. at 2415 (“Section 7 [16 U.S.C. § 1536] imposes a broad, affirmative

(1974 Supp.)] of Ch. 74-386, Laws of Florida. Section 7(16) of Ch. 74-386, Laws of Florida [s.943.22, F