Re: 50/50 book ownership dispute

At 08:45 AM 3/21/2006, you wrote:
> I am 50% owner of a copyrighted book. My partner and I wrote,
> published, and distribute the book. Recently, that book sold out of
> its first printing. I wish to reprint, my partner does not. Through
> long negotiations, I have not been able to convince him of the
> value of a reprint. The book's material is somewhat time-sensitive
> and he thinks it is dated. It had to be reprinted to be available
> for sale this summer to be of value. Thinking further arguement
> futile, without telling him, I decided to reprint using my own
> money. Later, I told him what I did, but still offered him
> partnership in the profits of the book after it returned me my
> investment in the reprint. He declined all reasonable offers and
> threatens to sue over my "unlawful" pirating of his copyrighted
> property. He also claims that reprinting the book without his
> permission was illegal. What would be anybodies take on this?

This isn't legal advice (although you're free to contact me if you want some, and you're in a jurisdiction where I'm licensed, i.e., California and the District of Columbia), but as a general proposition, joint owners *in the U.S.* can grant non-exclusive licenses, subject to the duty to account. They can't sue each other for copyright infringement. In the 9th Circuit (and I have no idea where you are, but the rest of this hypothetical will assume somewhere in the U.S.), the leading case is called Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633-35 (9th Cir. 1984) , although decisions in other jurisdictions cite it.

Joint ownership arises in various ways, including joint authorship, assignment, partnership, and intestate succession. It sounds as if two of these apply (joint authorship and partnership). It would be interesting to know what legal theory would be used to sue you, not so much for the result (because it sounds as if you have the right to exploit the work), but whether if you won, could you get your attorney fees? Under the Copyright Act, fee-shifting is in the discretion of the court, in cases arising under the Copyright Act. If a different theory were used, the so-called "American rule" (each side pays its own), would probably apply. If both, the court might award the winning party all of its ("reasonable") attorney fees, or it might pro-rate them among multiple theories.

S. Martin Keleti
Cohen and Cohen
740 North La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038-3339
323.938.5000
323.936.6354 fax Received on Wed Mar 22 2006 - 04:10:00 GMT