Re: 204 and copyright license

On 8/27/99, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> Radio Television Espanola S.A. v. New World Entertainment, Ltd.,
> No. 97-56418 (9th Cir., July 16, 1999) upholds a district court
> grant of summary judgment in a case claiming breach of an alleged
> exclusive license to broadcast certain programs. The Ninth Circuit
> agrees that fax documents and internal memoranda do not satisfy
> the writing requirement of sec. 204(a).
>
> I had thought it was clear that 204(a) applied to copyright transfers
> and assignments but not to license agreements. Am I wrong, or is the
> Ninth Circuit a bottle short of a six-pack.

I don't know about other Circuits, but the 9th Circuit has distinguished between exclusive and non-exclusive licenses; only the latter aren't subject to section 204(a). From the Radio Television Espanola decision: "This court has consistently found copyright license agreements invalid that have not complied with S 204(a). See Konigsberg Int'l. Inc. v. Rice, 16 F.3d 355, 356-57 (9th Cir. 1994) [for fans, the "Rice" here is Anne Rice]; Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 556-58 (9th Cir. 1990); Valente-Kritzer Video v. Pinckney, 881 F.2d 772, 775 (9th Cir. 1989)."

It's important to note that the Radio Television Espanola court held that the documents failed to satisfy 204(a) not because they were in the form of a fax, but because the documents evidenced merely preliminary discussions toward a license agreement. The case shouldn't be read as holding that a fax cannot constitute a writing for purposes of 204(a).

   http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9756418.html.    

John Muller
johnmuller[_at_]earthlink.net
jmuller[_at_]brobeck.com
"The ladder of law has no top and no bottom" Received on Sun Aug 29 1999 - 19:56:18 GMT