have met their burden under Real Truth. III. A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The elements of a copyright infringement claim are (i) ownership of a valid copyright and (ii) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). These two elements are separately addressed. With respect to ownership, the primary outstanding dispute is over whether the programming code is a work made for hire in which ownership vested originally in Nabon. Where, as here, a disputed work is produced abroad, courts must look to the law of the country of the work’s origin to determine ownership. See Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, 90-91 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). And on this issue, plaintiffs provide an
recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes holding that the law of the country of origin determines the ownership of copyright and thus looking to russian law to determine ownership of a work produced by russian nationals and first published in russia holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur