assignment of copyright and licenses

Copyright Licenses and Assignments

One of the primary benefits of copyright ownership is the ability to transfer some or all of those rights to third parties. These transfers can be for all of the copyright rights in a work (which is generally referred to as an outright assignment), or can be for a limited portion of the rights provided by the Copyright Act (which usually takes the form a copyright license).

The BitLaw discussion of assignments and licenses is divided into the following four sections:

• transfers in general
• implied licenses
• termination of transfers
• recordation of transfers

Transfers in General

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property. It is probably best to view copyright as a bundle of rights. The rights included in that bundle are the rights granted by the U.S. Copyright Act, as described in the BitLaw discussion on the scope of copyright protection . Any or all of these rights, or any subdivision of those rights, may be transferred.

A transfer of one of these rights may be made on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. The transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement. For example, the author of a novel, as the original copyright owner of the novel, could transfer to a publisher the exclusive right to copy and distribute a novel (under the right of reproduction and distribution ), and also grant a screen play writer the nonexclusive right to create a movie script based on that novel (under the right to create derivative works ). The author's agreement with the publisher would have to be in writing to be valid. However, the agreement with the screen play writer could be oral and still be enforceable.

A transfer of copyright rights is usually either an assignment or a license. An assignment of copyright rights is like the sale of personal property. The original owner sells its rights to a third party, and can no longer exercise control over how the third party uses those rights. A license (or more properly "an express license") is an agreement where the copyright owner maintains its ownership of the rights involved, but allows a third party to exercise some or all of those rights without fear of a copyright infringement suit. A license will be preferred over an assignment of rights where the copyright holder wishes to maintain some ownership over the rights, or wishes to exercise continuing control over how the third party uses the copyright holder's rights.

A typical software license agreement is a copyright license agreement. The owner of the copyright in the software wishes to grant the end-user the right to utilize the software in a restricted manner. In return, the end-user may agree to limit its use of the software in a variety of ways and to pay a license fee payment to the copyright owner.

Implied Licenses

An implied copyright license is a license created by law in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties. Implied licenses arise when the conduct of the parties indicates that some license is to be extended between the copyright owner and the licensee, but the parties themselves did not bother to create a license. This differs from an express license in that the parties never actually agree on the specific terms of the license. The purpose of an implied license is to allow the licensee (the party who licenses the work from the copyright owner) some right to use the copyrighted work, but only to the extent that the copyright owner would have allowed had the parties negotiated an agreement. Generally, the custom and practice of the community are used to determine the scope of the implied license.

Implied licenses have been used to grant licenses in situations where a copyrighted work was created by one party at the request of another. In one case, a special effects company was hired to create a specific effect for a horror movie. The contract through which the special effects company was hired did not assign the copyright in the effect, and did not provide for a license for the effect to be used in the horror movie. The court ruled that the effect could be used in the horror movie through an implied license, since the effect was created with the intent that it be used and distributed in the movie.

A commonly discussed scenario where implied licenses are destined to play a major role is on the World Wide Web. When a Web page is viewed in a Web browser, the page is downloaded through the Internet and placed on the user's screen. It is clear that a copy of the Web page is being made by the user. It is also clear that the Web page is protected against unauthorized copying by copyright law. But it would not make sense to allow the author of a Web page to sue a user who viewed her page, since the author intended that the page be viewed by others when she placed it on the World Wide Web. Rather, attorneys argue, courts should find that the Web page author has given end users an implied license to download and view the Web page. The extent of this implied license is unclear, and may someday be defined by the courts.

Termination of Transfers

Although a copyright owner is free to transfer her copyright rights as she sees fit, the Copyright Act contains a non-revocable right for a copyright owner to terminate any copyright transfer. The purpose for this is to give the creator of the work or the creator's heirs a second chance to exploit the work in situations where the value of the work may have been significantly enhanced since the original transfer. Generally, there is a five year window of time to accomplish the termination beginning either at

• 35 years from the assignment if the transfer was made on or after January 1, 1978; or
• 56 years from the date copyright was originally secured if the transfer was made before January 1, 1978.

The ability to terminate a transfer cannot be negotiated away. Thus, the author of a valuable book has the right to reclaim the copyright in the book by terminating the transfer, even if the agreement signed by the author stated that the assignment of her copyright rights was permanent and irrevocable. Exceptions to this ability to terminate a transfer are made for those parties who created derivative works prior to the termination (see the BitLaw discussion on derivative works for more information on this subject). In addition, works made for hire are not subject to this termination of transfer right (works made for hire are discussed in the BitLaw section on copyright ownership ).

Recordation of Transfers

A document that transfers copyright ownership or any other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer of a copyright, recordation of the transfer document does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties.

The Difference Between Copyright Assignments and Licenses

The Difference Between Copyright Assignments And Licenses

There are two ways that a copyright owner can transfer some or all of his or her copyright rights: through a license or an assignment.

In an assignment of copyright rights, the owner sells his or her ownership rights to another party and has no control over how the third party uses those rights. A copyright assignment is sometimes referred to as a sales agreement for copyright.

The buyer (assignee) can then use the copyrighted work or do whatever he or she wants with it. He or she all of the assigned rights that the original owner had.

A valid assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by, or on behalf of, the copyright owner/assignor. The subject of the assignment must be clear as to what copyright is being assigned in which work(s).

In a license of copyright rights, the owner maintains his or her copyright ownership rights, but allows another party (the licensee) to exercise some of those rights without the licensee’s actions being considered copyright infringement. A license is often preferred over an assignment when the copyright holder wishes to maintain and exercise some ownership control over the rights and how the licensee uses the copyright holder’s rights.

For example, a typical software license agreement is a copyright license agreement. The software copyright owner grants the user/licensee the right to use the software in a specified, restricted manner. In return, the user/licensee may agree to limit his or her use of the software in various ways and to pay the copyright owner a license fee.

Unlike a copyright assignment, a copyright license does not have to be in a signed writing. A license can be oral or arise by implication when considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction between the copyright owner and the purported licensee.

If you own a copyright in a work that you are thinking about assigning, you should consider whether to license your copyright instead, thus allowing you to retain ownership, and license only certain rights to the other party.

For additional information about the difference between copyright assignments and license, please  contact us .

• 4829 E Beltline Ave NE, Suite 103 Grand Rapids, MI 49525
• 616.226.8000

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Copyright Licensing Under the Law

Under copyright law, authors of original works of authorship that are tangibly fixed in a medium have a bundle of rights. The bundle includes the six economic rights of reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digitally transmitting sound recordings. If the work of authorship is a work of fine art, the author also has moral rights.

When any of these rights are infringed, the holder of the rights may bring a copyright lawsuit to enforce those rights. For example, a musician might sue a film studio that used a copy of his song as part of the soundtrack for a movie. Or a painter might sue a graphic artist who built on his existing work on the grounds that the new work is actually a derivative work.

The first sale and fair use doctrines are limited defenses to copyright infringement.

Under the first sale doctrine, an individual who purchases a copy of an original work of authorship can dispose of that particular copy by selling it or displaying it, irrespective of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. However, the first sale doctrine does not protect an individual who makes unauthorized copies and distributes them, unless those copies are considered “fair use.” For example, a reviewer may quote from a book in order to criticize it, and the magazine may make copies of that review under the fair use doctrine. But a private individual who makes photocopies of an entire book that he purchased, and then sells the copies repackaged, infringes on the author’s copyright.

In many cases, an author of an original work may gain an economic or other benefit by granting another person or entity the authority to exercise one or more of these rights, or even part of one of the rights. A transfer of rights in a copyrighted work can be accomplished through a copyright license or an assignment . Generally, the difference between the two is that licenses allow a copyright owner to retain the rights while giving someone else a right to exercise some of them, whereas an assignment results in a copyright owner losing control over the work. Moral rights in a work of fine art can be waived, but they cannot be licensed or assigned.

Copyright Licensing Rules

If economic rights are transferred, the transfer must be in writing and signed by the copyright holder. However, if the right is transferred on a non-exclusive basis, no writing is needed. Copyright law does not require that payment or anything else be exchanged in order to grant someone a license, but often copyright holders do require payment, place restrictions on the license, or require the licensee to meet some other obligation.

The license will dictate all the terms of the transfer of rights. Usually, it will spell out which rights are being licensed, the number of uses, to what extent the work can be used, and the length of time until a license expires. It will also specify any requirements or obligations on the part of the licensee. For example, a copyright holder may license a work to be distributed only in a particular geographic region. If the licensee distributes the work in other geographic regions, the copyright holder can sue for infringement and obtain an injunction or damages.

• The exact rights licensed
• The number of permitted uses
• The extent of permitted uses
• When the license starts and ends

Often, a third-party organization is authorized by the copyright holder to grant the permission on the holder’s behalf. For example, stock photo websites often grant licenses to individuals to use a photographer’s stock photo on their website or online magazine for a small fee under a license.

Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, authors or those who inherit their rights are permitted to terminate grants of copyright licenses that are made on or after January 1978 if certain conditions are met, except in the case of works for hire. For example, when an author dies, those who own more than half of that author’s interest in the work can terminate the license. Termination can also happen within five years, starting at the end of 35 years from the execution of the license. When the license covers the right of publication, the license can be terminated 35 years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of 40 years from the date the license is executed, whichever is earlier.

Last reviewed October 2023

Intellectual Property Law Center Contents   

• Intellectual Property Law Center
• Copyright Infringement & Related Lawsuits
• Copyright Ownership Under the Law
• Assignment of Copyrights & Legal Implications
• Royalty Payments for Legally Copyrighted Artwork
• International License Agreements for U.S. Artists & Related Legal Issues
• Copyright Registration Under the Law
• Safe Harbors for Online Service Providers Under Copyright Law
• Criminal Copyright Infringement Laws
• Enforcement of Copyrights Through Lawsuits & Criminal Charges
• Fair Use Defense to Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Software Development Agreements & Related Legal Concerns
• End-User License Agreements Imposing Legal Restrictions on Software
• Lists, Directories, and Databases Under Copyright Law
• Photos of Buildings and Architecture Under Copyright Law
• Photos of Copyrighted or Trademarked Works & the Fair Use Defense to Infringement Lawsuits
• Works in the Public Domain After Copyrights Legally Expire
• Copyrights and Credits for Songwriters Under the Law
• Music Samples and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Playing Music in Stores or Restaurants — How to Avoid Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Consignment Sales by Artists to Stores & Legal Protections
• Destruction of Copyrighted Works & Limited Legal Protections
• Copyright Legal Forms
• Trademark Law
• Trade Secret Law
• Choosing Among Patent, Copyright, and Trademark for Legal Protection
• Intellectual Property Law FAQs
• Find an Intellectual Property Lawyer

Related Areas   

• Small Business Legal Center
• Entertainment Law Center
• Communications and Internet Law Center
• Sports Law Center
• Related Areas
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Assignment and Licensing of Copyrights under Copyrights Act

• Intellectual Property Rights Subject-wise Law Notes
• January 8, 2021

Introduction

IP is an intellectual work which is produced by intellectual human brain. For e.g. literary work, musical work, inventions, etc. it is an intangible property. It is described as property because it is capable of sale, purchase, mortgage, etc. the owner if IP has rights over his intangible property. No one can make use of IP without the consent of the owner. IP is made to protect their rights and the infringement.

Copyright is a protection given to the creators of certain types of works as an acknowledgment to their intellectual input [1] . The objective of copyright has always been the protection of the interest of a creator, coupled with dissemination of knowledge. Though this protection started with the recognition of rights of authors in their books, but modern technology has substantially changed the nature of work and its mode of exploitation.

Economic rights allow an owner to reap economic benefits from his intellectual creations. According to section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, different rights are recognised with respect to the nature of the work. As per this section, it is the exclusive right of the owner to do or authorise the doing of the acts provided thereunder.

Today copyright includes a variety of industries like: the information industry and the entertainment industry and industrial design.

Assignment of Copyrights : Section 18 of Copyrights Act

The owner of the copyright of a work has the right to assign his copyright to any other person. The effect of assignment is that the assignee becomes entitled to all the rights related to the copyright to the assigned work. [2] However, mere grant of right to publish and sell the copyrighted work amounts to publishing right and not assignment of copyright.

Where the assignee of a copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, he shall be treated as the owner of the copyright in respect of those rights. The assignor shall also be treated as the owner of copyright with respect to unassigned rights. The legal representatives of the assignee shall be entitled to the benefits of assignment, if the assignee dies before the work comes into existence.

In  Video Master v. Nishi  Production [3] , the Bombay High Court considered the issue whether assignment of video rights would include the right of satellite broadcast as well. The Court agreed with the contentions of defendant that there were different modes of communication to the public such as terrestrial television broadcasting (Doordarshan), satellite broadcasting and video TV. The owner of the film had separate copyright in all those modes, and he could assign it to different persons. Thus, satellite broadcast copyright of film was a separate right of the owner of the film and the video copyright assigned to the plaintiff would not include this.

Mode of Assignment: Section 18 of Copyrights Act

As per section 19, assignment of copyright is valid only if it is in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorized agent. The assignment of a copyright in a work should identify the work and specify kind of rights assigned and the duration and territorial extent of such assignment. Further, it should specify the amount of royalty payable, if any, to the author or his legal heirs during the continuance of assignment and the assignment will be subject to revision, extension or termination on terms mutually agreed upon by the parties.

If the period of assignment is not mentioned it will be deemed to be taken as five years from the date of assignment. If the territorial extent of such assignment is not stipulated, it will be taken as applicable in whole of India.

Also, Section 19(8) contemplates that the assignment of copyright work against the terms and conditions on which rights have been assigned to a particular copyright society where the author of the work is a member shall be void. Further, Section 19(9) and section 19(10) opine that the assignment of copyright for making cinematograph film or sound recording shall not affect the right of the author to claim an equal share of the royalties and consideration payable with respect to use of his protected work.

In  Saregama India Ltd v. Suresh  Jindal [4] , it was held that the owner of the copyright in a future work may assign the copyright to any person either wholly or partially for the whole of the copyright or any part thereof and once the assignment is made the assignee for the purpose of this Act is treated as the owner of the copyright.

Licensing of Copyright

The owner of copyright may grant a license to do any of the act in respect of which he has an exclusive right to do. The license can be classified into following categories:

Voluntary license: : Section 18 of Copyrights Act

The author or the copyright owner has exclusive rights in his creative work and he alone has right to grant license with respect to such work. According to section 30 of the Copyright Act 1957, the owner of the copyright in a work may grant any interest in his copyright to any person by license in writing, which is to be signed by him or by his duly authorised agent. A license can be granted not only in existing work but also in respect of the future work, in this situation assignment shall come into force when such future work comes into existence. Where a licensee of the copyright in a future work dies before such work comes into existence, his legal representatives shall be entitled to the benefit of the license if there is no provision to contrary.

The mode of license is like an assignment deed, with necessary adaptations and modifications in section 19 (section 30A). Therefore, like an assignment, a license deed in relation to a work should comprise of following particulars:

• Duration of license
• The rights which have been licensed
• Territorial extent of the licensed
• The quantum of royalty payable
• Terms regarding revision
• Extension and termination

Voluntary licenses can be:

Exclusive –  The term exclusive license has been defined in Section 2(j) as a license which confers on the licensee and persons authorized by him, to the exclusion of all other persons, any right comprised in the copyright work.

Non-exclusive  – It does not confer right of exclusion. It is mere grant of an authority to do a particular thing which otherwise would have constituted an infringement. When owner grants an exclusive right, he denudes himself of all rights and retains no claim on the economic rights so transferred.

Co-exclusive –  Here the licensor grants a license to more than one licensee but agrees that it will only grant licences to a limited group of other licensees.

Sole license  – Where only the licensor and the licensee can use it to the exclusion of any other third party.

Implied license –  Author impliedly allows or permits the use of his work. For example, he had knowledge that someone is using his work but he did not take any action.

Compulsory Licenses

 Compulsory and statutory licenses can impact both the identity of the licensee who the owner chooses to deal with and the terms, including rates of royalty, that the owner may stipulate for such dealing. Viewed from this perspective, compulsory licenses are less of an infraction on owner autonomy, on both these counts. The owner does retain a fair bit of autonomy to enter into appropriate licensing arrangements with those who he may deem fit, and he is also permitted to negotiate on the terms of the license within the zone of reasonableness. Normally, it is an unreasonable refusal to deal with a person that gives rise to a compulsory license. This brings us to the third important distinction between a compulsory and statutory license. The former is always granted upon specific application by an individual to the competent authority. The latter, on the other hand, is a blanket fixation of rates of royalty by the authority and a grant of standardised licenses to all those who are interested in availing the same. The owner, as a necessary corollary, has no autonomy on the identity of those who obtain the license, or what they pay as royalty for the same.

 Categories of Compulsory Licenses

There are five main categories of compulsory licenses currently operating in India.

 These are:

1. Licenses in respect of works unreasonably withheld from the public;

 2. Licenses in respect of orphan works;

 3. Licenses in respect of works for the differently abled;

 4. Licenses in respect of translations;

5. Licenses in respect of reproduction and sale of works unavailable in India.

Statutory Licenses

 As seen from the above discussion of compulsory licenses, such licenses can be understood as a particularised expropriation of owner autonomy in respect of the copyrighted work. The need for such expropriation arises only upon acts or inaction on the part of the owner that render the work unavailable to the public or differently abled persons. Statutory licenses, on the other hand, do not require any examination into the conduct of the owner. It attempts a wholesale expropriation of owner autonomy, once the work fits within the broader class of works that can be so licensed.

There are two such categories of statutory licenses, namely cover version recording licenses (Section 31C) and broadcasting licenses (Section 31D).

 The first has existed, though as part of the fair dealing exceptions in Section 52, from the very beginning. The second is a very recent addition to the Act vide the 2012 amendment.

The term ‘assignment’ and ‘license’ are not interchangeable. An assignment is different from a license. Generally, in absence of any provision to the contrary the assignee becomes the owner of the assigned work, whereas in case of a license the licensee gets the right to exercise particular rights only.

An assignment may be general, i.e. without limitation or an assignment may be subject to limitations. It may be for the whole term of copyright or any part thereof. An assignment transfers an interest in and deals with copyright itself as provided under section 14 of the Act, but license does not convey the copyright but only grants a right to do something, which in absence of license would be unlawful. An assignment transfers title in copyright, a license merely permits certain things to be done by licensee. The assignee being invested with the title in the copyright may reassign [5] .

[1] This is known as the ‘Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow’, whereby a work is given copyright protection if the author has applied ‘labour, skill or judgment’ in creating the work irrespective of the level of originality in the work. Evolved from the decision in Ladbroke v William Hill, [1964] 1 All E.R. 465.

[2] Section 18(2); Copyright Act, 1957.

[3] 23 IPLR 388 (1998).

[4] 2007 (34) PTC 522 (Cal).

[5] Deshmukh & co (publishers) pvt ltd v/s avinash vishnu khadekar 2006 (32) PTC 358 (Bom)

Author Name: Muskaan Mathur [Student, Savitribai Phule, Pune University (SPPU)]

You might like

Indian Contract Act 1872 Notes [Law of Contracts Notes]

Joginder Kumar vs State of UP

Nemo Est Haeres Viventis

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment