See Simon the difference is that my Father had a lawyer draft several documents pertaining to the 76 issue. Theirs 4 different legal documents pertaining to that article alone which state that John F Creeden Jr owns like "Ed Iakuta" from Black Belt owns the story and the rights to said story. And all my Fathers documents were signed by Al Weiss Editor and Chief of Official Karate.
Just becuase the real BDFS has had national exposure, and all you " Ham and Egger's" don't . You should have been here when I had an arguement with John Patricio about the Ed Iakuta 3 magazine layout with Black Belt of Count Dante. They have the same paperwork and negatives pertaining that lay-out. The only difference is that Black Belt has stronger rights because they are some of the best selling Black Belt magazines ever sold. So they bought and paid for stronger rights to those magazine's.
Officcial Karate doesn't have the negative's I should know I contacted them and they wanted to buy them from my Father. And the rights pertaining to that particular story. So once again I showed you.
Its like when you guy's couldn't find the 1986 copyright and attachment's and the intelluctual property to the 1969 book. But everybody else could , so continue to spurt out of your mouth .But were is your so called proof that your a writer show us some articles you wrote and some of the bad deals that you brokered. He who own the negatives and story boards owns the property of the story.
Its just like when Floyd said that Christa Dante letter weren't notorized their not legal, well your all wrong AGAIN. Read were does it state notorization, it doesn't . Before you all talk remember this. Floyd has nothing that why he claims Fair Use. He's gonna need to do squats and to stretch becuse after Friday his head going to be so far up his ass. Whoops Simon did you just shit yourself. HAHAHA
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
How Current is This?
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.
(b) A certificate of acknowledgement is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if—
(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or
(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an officer.