Thanks for your feedback, Darby.
I suppose you are right. That makes sense. And I get that the JTF has rights to their book, which is also copyrighted. But I am trying to reconcile that with MOP's post:
So in your opinion then, was Raul Burriel mistaken when this comment was made? Also, how was the author of the Conviction of a Time Traveler book able to get a copyright on Titor if Haber has the rights?
As Buzzmaker correctly stated on Anomalies when asked the same questions - derivitives. You can post or otherwise create any literary work that you want, even if the story has been told before, just so long as you don't copy and paste verbatum that which has already been published. Derivitive works have been published for centuries without fear of copyright infringement. If it were otherwise The Asylum movie production studio, the king of "mockbuster" movies, would have long ago been shut down.
But there is no question about who owns the copyright to The Book, logo, drawings and schematics. The copyright was filed with the US Patent Office in 2003 by the JTF.
From the USPTO database:
Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: TXu001126005 / 2003-10-27 Title: A time traveler’s tale : the story of John Titor. Description: 137 p. Copyright Claimant: John Titor Foundation, Inc. Date of Creation: 2001 Names:
John Titor Foundation, Inc.
The logo, drawings and schematics are included in The Book. It makes no difference where they may have been originally posted. The law is on the side of the JTF. They have been issued a copyright on the material by the US government. Anyone who feels otherwise would be charged with the responsibility of convincing a jury that the JTF does not hold the right, not the other way around.
And note that the copyright holder is the JTF, not John Titor. Boomer has obviously assigned his rights to the company. Even if someone wanted to sue the JTF for copyright infringement just to be able to confront the actual author in court they cannot expect to discover the "real" author. The "real" author no longer holds the right and his/her identity need not be disclosed at trial. Disclosure would be a trial tactic for the JTF if they felt it necessary to protect their interest - and it would only happen with the consent of Boomer. It's likely the JTF has a non-disclosure agreement with him. This doesn't mean that Boomer sold off his rights. It just means that he formed a company and made the company legally "John Titor". Larry Haber is the general manager and attorney for the JTF and Larry Haber would appear in court for the company, not Boomer.
The copyright can be challenged if someone has the time and money. And "the money" will not be cheap. I've been involved in radio comedy production where my company authored, recorded and shopped radio comedy only to find that a
major radio personality, then at KMET Los Angeles, later re-recorded the material verbatim and made a bundle on it. Could I and my partners have sued him? Yep. We also shopped that idea to several attorneys. The average was $100,000 up front in attorney fees plus court costs and 33% to the law firm is we prevailed. We didn't have the 100 grand up front to proceed. And this was almost 30 years ago. The costs have increased since then.
The situation would be about the same here. We faced a major radio star (who is still a major radio star). Anyone facing off with the JTF faces a major entertainment industry lawyer. Owning the name "John Titor" simply is not worth the effort. There's no money to be made if you prevail. The JTF, after 10 years, hasn't made a dime. (Larry - correct me if I'm wrong.)
So, what's the point of claiming ownership?