Re: Copyright transfers and exclusive licenses *really* must be in writing

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Mike Oliver wrote:

> I like to keep example cases on file to convince clients to do things
> right, a good case just came along under Sec 204 . . . Lyrick Studios,
> Inc. v. Big Idea Productions, Inc. (5th Cir. 8/5/2005) [
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0310837p.pdf ]

I just like the sentence:

    Phil Vischer founded Appellant Big Idea Productions, Inc. to finance     and market VeggieTales, a computer-animated Christian themed     children's cartoon he created, featuring the characters Bob the Tomato     and Larry the Cucumber.

> The lesson would be that a person believing to "have a deal" under an
> exclusive copyright license should not rely on verbal confirmation,
> even if drafts had been exchanged. (I get this all the time from
> clients . . . ).

Then there's Kozinski's masterful summary in Effects Assoc. v. Cohen:

   Cohen suggests that section 204's writing requirement does not apply to    this situation, advancing an argument that might be summarized, tongue    in cheek, as: Moviemakers do lunch, not contracts. Cohen concedes that    "[i]n the best of all possible legal worlds" parties would obey the    writing requirement, but contends that moviemakers are too absorbed in    developing "joint creative endeavors" to "focus upon the legal niceties    of copyright licenses." Appellees' Brief at 16, 18. Thus, Cohen    suggests that we hold section 204's writing requirement inapplicable    here because "it [i]s customary in the motion picture industry ... not    to have written licenses." Id. at 18. To the extent that Cohen's    argument amounts to a plea to exempt moviemakers from the normal    operation of section 204 by making implied transfers of copyrights "the    rule, not the exception," id., we reject his argument.

http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/effectscohentext.htm Received on Tue Aug 09 2005 - 02:40:02 GMT