and Plaintiffs refused to grant their permission for the show to be finished and broadcast on television. Over Plaintiffs’ objections, Defendants finished the show on their own and broadcast it. Under the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in developing the show. The central inquiry in Plaintiffs’ case, therefore, was whether the show, as eventually completed and broadcast, impermissibly copied from Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books. At the time that Plaintiffs filed the action, the court believes that it was clearly reasonable for Plaintiffs to think that Defendants’ conduct may have violated the Copyright Act by copying from Plaintiffs’ original books. See Garnier v. Andin Intern., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 58, 62 (D.R.I.1995) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the vast amount of discovery
recognizing that time to consider reasonableness of plaintiffs position is at time of initiation of litigation holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that the time to disposition is more important than time to trial holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances