Legal Question in Intellectual Property in District of Columbia
Copyright Q, re ownership
I have an agreement which states, ''X owns all derivative works, modifications and copies of (a computer program).'' I would like to be directed to case law or secondary sources which say that use of such language invokes a presumption that X is entitled to the IP rights embedded and NOT a tangible thing which holds the dw, modification or copy. I know this seems intuitive but I need support to answer, ''what does ownerhip mean?'' Nimmer does not address this. 17 usc 101 defines ''copyright ownership'' but this is merely '''ownership' in ....''.
Also, two additional questions (my first question being most important). If A has ownership in underlying IP via a copyright transfer (assignment or license or sale) from B, can B ever terminate the ownership? How can he if A is an owner now? For example, once I own my car, no one can just come in and take it. Is it the same for copyright ownership if it is recieved from a transfer? If B can, please provide support by way of case law or secondary sources for your answers, I would be most grateful. I need to back this up with support and not just come with answers. Thank you in advance for your time.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Copyright Q, re ownership
As for your first question, take a look at Section 202, in which Congress has made a sharp distinction between ownership in the copyright and ownership in the tangible object in which the copyrighted work is embedded. If I own a "lawfully made copy" it does not matter who owns the copyright -- I get to keep the copy. In fact, under Section 109(a), if I own the lawfully made copy I have the right to sell or otherwise dispose of possession (such as by lending or rental) even with the copyright owner's objection (but if it is music or certain types of computer programs, I need permission to rent it).
You second question may turn more on the specific facts. If you own a car, but, for example, your contract says that the seller has the right to buy it back from you at any time for fair market value, it is a contract issue. The same with the copyright -- if the copyright owner gave you a perpetual irrevocable transfer, then that's probably all there is to it, but if the transferor retained some right to get it back in the future, then whatever the agreement says would generally govern. Of course, courts will look to the substance of the deal, and not just what it was called. Also, under a work-for-hire scenario, there may be a statutory right that applies. Finally, it is important to distinguish what rights are involved: there are six specific rights in Section 106, and an irrevocable and complete license as to one does not necessarily mean any of the other rights were transferred. For example, a copyright owner may give me a license to reproduce a work, but not the license to perform it publicly. Under Section 109, I could sell my reproduction, but neither I nor the person who buys it from me could perform it publicly.
I hope some of this is helpful;. Bear in mind that I don't know you, I am not your attorney, and this is not legal advice -- it's just information you may find helpful in directing you to the right answer, or in deciding when to retain an attorney.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
