Routine] was published.” (Opp’n at 9; Am. Compl. ¶ 42). Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable - to the Plaintiffs, UPC’s registration of the initial copyrights in One Night in its name was “therefore the first time that it obtained [statutory] copyright under the 1909 Act[,]- upon UPC’s registration with the Copyright Office.” (Opp’n at 9; Am. Compl. ¶ 42). Specifically, the 'portion of the pre-existing Routine published in One Night was covered by the copyrights owned and registered by UPC. See Shoptalk, 168 F.3d at 592. The publication of the Routine within the film, therefore, extinguished whatever common law copyright Abbott and Costello had in the unpublished version of the Routine and had later assigned to UPC. See Shoptalk, 168 F.3d.586, 590, 591-92 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Roy Exp., 672 F.2d 1095, 1101 n. 13
holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work holding opinion work product to be absolutely protected recognizing that patent protection extends to elements not protected adequately by copyright holding misappropriation claim grounded solely in the copying of a plaintiffs protected expression was preempted by  301 of copyright act holding that because a single work cannot be protected from copying under both federal and state law simultaneously the securing of a statutory copyright either by general publication with a proper notice or by registration of tlie work ended the commonlaw protection