rely on the court’s second reason for rejecting the post-litigation license as a defense: that at the time Warner Bros, took the pictures and made pictorial reproductions, it did not have a license to do so, and therefore any infringing activity by Warner Bros, could not be later validated by the grant of a license. Id. Here, the Court has found that the defendant already had a valid, oral license from the same co-owners prior to their issuance of any retroactive license. The written license agreements only serve to memorialize terms already agreed upon earlier and do not act as a contrivance to avoid copyright infringement liability. Leicester, therefore, is clearly distinguishable. See Great Southern Homes, Inc. v. Johnson & Thompson Realtors, 797 F.Supp. 609, 612 (M.D.Tenn.1992) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs also argue that the written
recognizing validity of retroactive license that memorialized grant of oral license holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer holding governments repudiation of license gave patentee right to terminate license holding that the verification of mishlers medical license was part of the protected property interest in the license and reversing the district courts dismissal of his complaint holding grant of naked license to be a fraud on the public and unlawful