Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294

Kernel Records sued in Florida federal court for copyright infringement of Acidjazzed Evening.
Dispute centers on whether first publication occurred online (Internet) or on a physical disk in Australia.
Mosley moved for summary judgment arguing first publication was online, making Acidjazzed Evening a United States work subject to registration.
Kernel argued first publication was in Australia on a disk and later uploaded, potentially exempt from registration.
District court granted Mosley’s motion, relying on Internet/publication theory, and declined Kernel’s alternative theory.
On appeal, court reverses Mosley’s grant for lack of probative evidence; nonetheless affirms because Kernel failed to prove preregistration or foreign-work exemption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Acidjazzed Evening is a United States work requiring registration.	Kernel: foreign-first publication exempt.	Mosley: online publication makes it a US work requiring registration.	Not resolved: question remains whether publication was foreign or US; proceeding affirms due to lack of proof on either side.
Whether Mosley met Rule 56 burden to show no genuine dispute that publication occurred online.	Kernel argues publication was not online or was not proven.	Mosley asserted undisputed online publication via Internet site.	Mosley failed to prove absence of genuine dispute; district court erred in granting summary judgment.
Whether Kernel proved Acidjazzed Evening was a foreign work exempt from registration.	Kernel contends foreign publication on disk in Australia first occurred abroad.	Mosley contends no probative proof of foreign publication.	Record lacks sufficient probative evidence of foreign publication; case not remanded but affirmed on other grounds.
Whether the district court correctly applied the sham-affidavit rule to disregard testimony.	Kernel relied on Gallefoss declarations challenging online publication.	Mosley argued declarations were sham or inconsistent with deposition.	Court did not base outcome solely on sham-affidavit doctrine; ruling remained that there was insufficient evidence of publication method.

Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden to prove compliance with statutory formalities)
BUC Int'l Corp. v. Int'l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2007) (registration prerequisite for infringement action)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (registration is a claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional)
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment burden shifting)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)