Re: Copyright Ownership in Community Property States

On 4/26/99, Wes Cochran <xpjwc[_at_]ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
>
> I disagree that Rodrigue, if upheld, will have little practical
> significance, though maybe the problem will be more acute in Texas.
> The general principle of community property is that each spouse has an
> undivided one-half interest in property acquired during the marriage,
> with some exceptions. Inherited property, for example, is the separate
> property of the receiving spouse, and I believe that Texas at least
> keeps income generated from separate property as separate property as
> well. By analogy, if the copyright is separate property as Rodrigue
> indicates, then royalties for the works would also be separate property.
> Thus, a judge could not award any royalties to the non-creating spouse.
>
> Alimony might help solve the inequity, as I know that some community
> property states also have alimony. Texas, however, has very limited
> "spousal support" provisions. A spouse must have been a homemaker for
> more than 10 years and meet other requirements. And then, support can
> last for no more than 3 years and must be aimed at enabling the spouse
> to become self-supporting. Awarding support based simply on the size
> of the other spouse's separate property would be suspect, I believe.

The longstanding rule in Texas was that income from separate property was community property. I just asked an expert in the area, and she said that this is still the rule in Texas, except that legislation now permits spouses to alter this rule by agreement.

John Allison
allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu Received on Wed Apr 28 1999 - 16:44:30 GMT