[dragonwriter]

> If only the owner of the copyright can claim infringement (as is the case in the US), then the point is moot.

An exclusive license is a transfer of those rights under copyright to which it is exclusive from the licensor to the licensee. So the licensee would be, for the rights in question, the copyright holder, even if they were not the creator and the holder of the remainder of rights under copyright (see 17 USC Sec. 101, 201).

[delinka]

Right. The "owner of the copyright" doesn't have to be the original author.

[geoelectric]

Kind of. More that individual rights can have ownership transferred too, separately from each other and the original copyright, and any owner of the rights can claim infringement of the rights they own.