Only the person [who owns a copyright] can tell if it's infringing their copyright.

It's very simple. The question is who owns the copyright. Ed Condren and I say the instructors do. So do UCLA Extension and OnlineLearning.net -- now. But in the bundle of rights which is called copyright is distribution rights. And the legal owner of the copyright has to have somehow assigned that right to someone -- either directly to OnlineLearning or indirectly via the university -- in order for OnlineLearning to have that right. In other words, how can two things be true: The instructor owns all the rights and OnlineLearning has some rights?

It would resolve a sticking point of who owns the copyright of pictures going forward, and that might still be somewhat of a sticky issue.

It confirms what the Societe has said all along, which is that the Societe is the owner of the copyright and that any reproduction or even possession of plasters, molds and bronzes is a copyright violation,

You had reached a pessimistic view about your company's prospects with the upcoming (copyright) case.

That person is a failure who steals the science of a scientist and claims that he is the owner.