for which permission was granted” and concluding that “unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright” (emphasis added)); WGN Cont'l Broad. Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir.1982) (same); Glovaroma, Inc. v. Maljack Prod., Inc., 71 F.Supp.2d 846, 855-56 (N.D.Ill.1999) (hold ing that summary judgment dismissing infringement claim was inappropriate where scope of license was unclear). Also, it has been held by several courts and noted by commentators that a nonexclusive license cannot be transferred without permission of the copyright owner. See Gardner v. Nike, Inc., 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); In re Golden Books Family Entm’t, Inc., 269
holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider suit for judicial review filed by entity that was neither owner of property nor owners properly designated agent holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue holding neither booker nor blakely can be applied retroactively holding that neither exclusive nor nonexclusive licenses can be transferred absent copyright owners authorization holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment