That's the "common misconception" mentioned in the Copyright Office's FAQ-- that you have to do something besides author the creative work to hold the copyright. Registering a copyright is basically a way to fortify your position should a court battle ensue, but is optional and irrelevant if all the facts are sufficiently documented.

If I'm walking by Steven King's house and I find a heretofore-unknown draft in his trash, I'm not allowed to claim it's mine, publish it, distribute it, etc. without his permission. This is even true if he threw it in a trashcan in the park. Even if I didn't know who wrote it, it's not mine.

If I did start 'using' it, and he could prove the original draft was his (in the case of code, typically somewhat easy relative to art, etc., due to server logs, dated documentation of changes, practical side-by-side comparisons, etc.), at the very least he could reclaim the work in question and stop me. Depending on what I did with it, he could sue for damages, including punitive measures.

I'd imagine that back in 1994 or 1995 when this occurred, it was a lot tougher to find the primary sources without a trip to the (*shiver*) local law school library, and even if you got there, finding the "FAQ" version of the copyright process probably wasn't simple. But all that went down is that an author wanted his work to remain his. I'd do the same thing today if someone tried to set up a copycat CF based on our code, though we're in a much stronger legal position thanks to being incorporated, registered, better organized, etc.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com