and abandonment. Unlike in the Penguin Books case, here there is an “overt act by Plaintiff evidencing an intent to surrender the copyright” both with regards to the Yale policy and EMI’s own reservation of rights. Penguin Books, 2000 WL 1028634, at *20. Furthermore, this is not a case where “an occasional infringement slips through a copyright holder’s surveillance” and the plaintiff “has expended substantial resources in enforcing its copyrights.” Paramount Pictures, 11 F.Supp.2d at 337. Finally, it is unclear from the documentation of royalty payments, the length of time in which royalties were paid, or if they were consistently paid. Naxos claims that it is ambiguous as to whether the Menuhin and Fischer agreements remain in force since royalties were only to be -16 (2d Cir.1952) (<HOLDING>); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Indus., Inc.,
recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot holding that defendant is not entitled to a preliminary injunction where defendant photocopied and then sold plaintiffs book after its copyright expired holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction