author’s “absolute and unconditional sale of the material object carried with it an implied assignment of the common law copyright therein”) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Nimmer]. Third, each of the cases cited by the plaintiff is easily distinguished from the instant case. In the cases relied upon by the plaintiff there was ample evidence other than the mere possession of the work to support the conclusion that the publisher acquired the work through a proper transfer from the author. Usually, the evidence included a certificate of registration for the original copyright which, by law, was considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. However, there was often other evidence. See, e.g., Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., 113 F.2d 627, 628 (2d Cir.1940) (<HOLDING>); Ripley v. Findlay Galleries, Inc., 155 F.2d
holding that a back pay award should make injured parties whole by placing them in the position that they would have been but for the discrimination holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority holding copyright to mein kampf properly transferred to publisher considering the authors power and position in germany  it would be unreasonable to suppose that anyone would have been allowed to make unauthorized use of it holding that regardless of insurers good faith denial of coverage plaintiff is entitled to recover interest to put it in position it would have been in if coverage had not been denied