>Maybe the statute will provide some guidance:
>
>A "joint work" is a work prepared by two or more authors with the
>intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or
>interdependent parts of a unitary whole. 17 USC 101
>
>The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
>17 USC 201(a)
>
>Now, does this mean that, absent express agreement, each contributor
>can do what he or she wants with the joint work?
Almost. (see my comments below).
>I recall that there was a rule or holding that each author must
>account to the other for profit made from a joint work (contrast
>patent law, 35 USC 262) but I cannot find it in 17 USC, nor do I
>recall any specific case so holding. Moreover, 17 USC 201(d)(2)
>suggest that separate ownership is permitted. It is just not clear
>to me whether separate ownership arises only by agreement or
>assignment (see language of 201(d)(2), or by operation of law.
>
>Comments? Or better yet, does anyone know of a statutory provision I
>have overlooked or of a case that addresses this issue?
The law governing what co-owners of joint works may do with the work is not statutory. In fact the two provisions quoted above are most of the provisions in the Copyright Act that Refer to joint ownership. There are a couple of other provisions that refer to transfer of part ownership in a joint work and the author's termination rights. But those are not relevant to this discussion.
The law governing what can be done with joint works is case law and some commentary in the legislative history. The House Report (on p. 121) summarizes the law as follows:
There is also no need for a specific statutory provision
concerning the rights and duties of the coowners of a work;
court-made law on this point is left undisturbed. Under the
bill, as under the present law, coowners of a copyright would
be treated generally as tenants in common, with each coowner
having an independent right to use of [sic should be or]
license the use of a work, subject to a duty of accounting
to the other coowners for any profits.
A sampling of the case law includes Oddo v. Ries, 743 F2d 630 (9th Cir. 1984); Weinstein v. Univ. of Illinois, 811 F2d 1091 (7th Cir. 1987); Geshwind v. Garrick, 734 F. Supp 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). The rights of a coowner to do what he wills is subject to some limitations. He cannot license a work in a manner that will effectively destroy the entire copyright without the consent of the other coowners. See Goldstein, Copyright sec. 4.2.2.2 and cases cited there and Nimmer on Copyright sec. 6.10[A] and cases cited there. If a joint owner exploits the work, he has to account for the profits to the other coowers. See the Oddo case cited above. Additional cases can be found in Goldstein at sec. 4.2.2.1 and Nimmer at sec. 6.12.
Please note that this is the U.S. law on joint works. Many foreign jurisdictions require the consent of all coowners to license a joint work.
Director of the Law Library I own the copyright in all of my original Professor of Law writings, including messages to lists. University of South Dakota Unless otherwise noted, I grant permission School of Law for all of my postings to this list to be 414 E. Clark St. forwarded to other lists and freely Vermillion, SD 57069-2390 circulated on the nets. I nearly always (605) 677 6363 grant permission for non commercial uses (605) 677 6357 fax of any of my writings upon request.CNICOPY[_at_]CHARLIE.USD.EDU
Begin forwarded message:
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 12:47:38 -0500
> From: JOHN F. NOBLE <jnoble01[_at_]gumedlib.dml.Georgetown.EDU>
>
> > Dear cni-copyright subscribers:
> >
> > I have what may be a copyright puzzler related to something called "MUDS"
> > MUDs are shared virtual realities accessible through the Internet. MUD
> > users usually write programs to add to these virtual realities. In the
> > past, MUDs were pastimes or games. In recent years, they are being used
> > increasingly to build corporate and educational environments. Suddenly,
> > ownership of these environments has become an issue.
> > Although not a lawyer, I have done some research and currently see the
> > issue this way:
> >
> > MUDs are "collective works."
> > The code contributed by each MUD user is copyright by that user.
> > However, the user surrenders the right for his/her code to be
> > distributed and used as part of the "collective work."
> > Copying an individual's code and using it as part of a different
> > "collective work" (another MUD) would violate copyright unless
> > a license was given to copy and use the code elsewhere.
> >
> > Now, here's where I'm really stumped: Who owns the "collective work?"
> > If the users enter into an agreement that the collective work they program
> > is owned by a legal entity (person, corporation, partnership, etc.) that
> > should establish the owner. But, without such an overt agreement, who
> > owns the collective work?
> >
> > --
> > Greg Swan
> > swan[_at_]mcmuse.mc.maricopa.edu (internet) swan[_at_]mc (bitnet)
> > (602)461-7294
>
>
> The collective work is owned I think by the "joint authors". They do not
> so much "surrender" the right to distribute the work, as they each retain
> the right to individually copy, distribute, or license others to copy or
>
> distribute the product of joint authorship. I think you will find a recent
> decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals useful: Erickson v. Trinity
> Theater, No. 92-3598 (Jan. 6, 1994). You can get it off their BBS at
> 312-408-5176 (but you have to call in, register, and call back a couple
> days later).
>
> o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
> o <> o
> o John F. Noble <> jnoble01[_at_]gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu o
> o Editor <> o
> o Computer Law Reporter <> 202.625.2245 P.O.32230/WDC/20007 o
> o <> o
> o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Received on Fri Mar 25 1994 - 17:22:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT