and (4) by what acts and during what time the defendant has infringed the copyright. Gee v. CBS, Inc., 471 F.Supp. 600, 643 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd mem., 612 F.2d 572 (3d Cir.1979). The counterclaim has alleged the necessary elements to state a claim for copyright infringement. First, the counterclaim has pointed to the specific, original work that is the subject of the claim in that it has asserted infringement of the character “Ed Anger” as that character has been developed in approximately 450 of the defendant’s copyrighted publications which included “Ed Anger” essays or editorials. See 1 M. NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, § 2.12 (1990) (noting that characters are entitled to copyright protection); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. J.A.R. Sales, Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 679 (C.D.Cal.1982) (<HOLDING>). The counterclaim also clearly has alleged
holding that because the federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 et seq preempts michigans lemon law mcl 2571401 et seq the plaintiffs lemon law claim should have been resolved through binding arbitration holding that denial of vsf benefits to disabled retirees does not violate the ada the rehabilitation act 29 usc  791 et seq or the age discrimination in employment act of 1967 29 usc  621 et seq and that plaintiffs due process and first amendment claims were frivolous holding that prejudgment interest ordinarily should be awarded on damages pursuant to claims under the copyright act of 1909 17 usc  1 et seq 1976 ed superceded by the copyright act of 1976 17 usc  101 et seq holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original holding that the character et in the motion picture et the extraterrestrial itself a copyrighted work contains unique elements of expression and is protectable under the copyright act