admin - Copy Right Codex

Navigating Cross-border Property Transactions: Legal Insights

In today’s globalized world, cross-border property transactions have become increasingly common. Whether you are a real estate investor or a homeowner looking to buy or sell property abroad, understanding the legal aspects of these transactions is crucial. This article aims to provide insights into the legal framework surrounding cross-border property transactions, the role of legal professionals, risk management strategies, and future trends in international real estate. Understanding Cross-border Property Transactions When it comes to cross-border property transactions, the best property lawyers have a solid grasp of the basics of international real estate is essential. Different countries have their own laws and regulations regarding property ownership, taxes, and financing. Before venturing into a cross-border transaction, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with local customs and laws. To navigate cross-border property transactions successfully, it is important to understand key terminology commonly used in these transactions. Terms such as “lien,” “escrow,” and “notary” may vary in meaning and application across different jurisdictions. Being aware of these terms can help you communicate effectively with local stakeholders and avoid any misunderstandings. One of the first things to consider when engaging in a cross-border property transaction is the legal framework of the country you are dealing with. Each country has its own set of laws and regulations that govern property ownership, transfer, and taxation. For example, some countries may have restrictions on foreign ownership of real estate, while others may require additional permits or approvals for non-residents. In addition to legal considerations, it is important to understand the cultural and social norms of the country you are dealing with. Different countries have different customs and practices when it comes to real estate transactions. For instance, in some countries, it is common to negotiate the price of a property, while in others, the price may be fixed and non-negotiable. See also: How Insolvency Lawyers Can Help Protect Stakeholder Interests Another crucial aspect of cross-border property transactions is understanding the tax implications. Taxes can vary significantly from one country to another, and it is important to be aware of the tax laws and regulations in both your home country and the country where the property is located. This includes understanding any tax treaties or agreements that may exist between the two countries to avoid double taxation. Financing is another key consideration in cross-border property transactions. It is important to understand the financing options available in the country where the property is located, as well as any restrictions or requirements for non-residents. This may include understanding the local mortgage market, interest rates, and eligibility criteria. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct thorough due diligence before entering into a cross-border property transaction. This may involve obtaining professional advice from local lawyers, real estate agents, and financial advisors who are familiar with the local market and regulations. It is important to verify the legal status of the property, check for any outstanding liens or encumbrances, and ensure that all necessary permits and approvals are in place. Lastly, communication is key in cross-border property transactions. It is important to establish effective lines of communication with all parties involved, including buyers, sellers, agents, and legal professionals. This may involve overcoming language barriers, time zone differences, and cultural nuances to ensure smooth and successful transactions. In conclusion, cross-border property transactions require a solid understanding of international real estate, including legal frameworks, cultural norms, tax implications, financing options, due diligence, and effective communication. By familiarizing yourself with these aspects and seeking professional advice when needed, you can navigate cross-border transactions with confidence and success. Legal Framework for Cross-border Property Transactions International property laws and regulations form the legal framework within which cross-border property transactions take place. These laws govern issues such as property ownership, transfer of title, and taxation. Understanding the legalities involved is crucial to ensure compliance and avoid any legal challenges down the line. When engaging in cross-border property transactions, it is important to consider the legal implications specific to each country involved. For example, in some countries, foreigners may face restrictions on property ownership, while in others, certain areas may be designated for foreign investment only. These regulations can significantly impact the process and feasibility of a transaction. Furthermore, the transfer of title in cross-border property transactions can be a complex process. Each country may have its own requirements and procedures for transferring ownership, including the need for specific documents, certifications, or registrations. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in delays or even the invalidation of the transaction. In addition to property ownership and transfer, taxation is another important aspect to consider. Different countries have varying tax laws and regulations related to property transactions, such as capital gains tax, stamp duty, or property transfer tax. It is essential to understand these tax obligations to accurately calculate the costs and potential financial implications of the transaction. However, navigating the legal framework of cross-border property transactions can be complex. Legal challenges may arise due to differences in local laws, cultural practices, or language barriers. Engaging the services of a qualified real estate lawyer with expertise in international transactions is highly recommended to navigate these challenges smoothly. A real estate lawyer with international experience can provide valuable guidance and ensure compliance with all legal requirements. They can assist in conducting due diligence, reviewing contracts, and identifying any potential legal issues that may arise during the transaction. Their expertise can help mitigate risks and protect the interests of all parties involved. Furthermore, a real estate lawyer can help bridge the gap between different legal systems and cultures. They can act as a mediator, facilitating communication and understanding between parties from different countries. This can be particularly beneficial in resolving disputes or negotiating terms that satisfy all parties involved. In conclusion, the legal framework for cross-border property transactions is a complex and multifaceted area. Understanding the legalities involved, including property ownership, transfer of title, and taxation, is crucial to ensure compliance and avoid any legal challenges. Engaging the services of a qualified real estate

Navigating Cross-border Property Transactions: Legal Insights Read More »

How Insolvency Lawyers Can Help Protect Stakeholder Interests

Insolvency Lawyers / admin

In today’s ever-changing business landscape, companies face various challenges that can potentially lead to insolvency. During difficult times, it is imperative to have the support of experienced insolvency lawyers who can protect stakeholders’ interests. Understanding the role of insolvency lawyers is essential in navigating the complex legal terrain that encompasses insolvency cases. Understanding the Role of Insolvency Lawyers Insolvency lawyers play a crucial role in helping businesses and individuals navigate the legal complexities of insolvency and restructuring. These professionals possess comprehensive knowledge of insolvency laws, regulations, and procedures, enabling them to provide invaluable guidance and representation throughout the process. When a business or individual faces insolvency, it can be an overwhelming and distressing situation. Insolvency lawyers step in to provide much-needed support and expertise, helping their clients understand their rights and obligations while developing effective legal strategies to protect their interests. Key Responsibilities of Insolvency Lawyers Insolvency lawyers have a broad range of responsibilities, including: Assessing the financial situation is a critical first step for insolvency lawyers. They meticulously analyze the financial records, debts, and assets of their clients to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation. This assessment helps them determine the best course of action and advise their clients accordingly. Learn more about navigating cross-border property transactions. Advising stakeholders is another crucial responsibility of insolvency lawyers. They provide clear and concise explanations of the rights and obligations of each party involved in the insolvency process. This guidance helps stakeholders make informed decisions and understand the potential outcomes of their actions. Developing legal strategies is a complex task that requires a deep understanding of insolvency laws and regulations. Insolvency lawyers carefully analyze the unique circumstances of each case to devise effective strategies that protect the interests of their clients. These strategies may involve negotiations, restructuring plans, or legal actions, depending on the specific situation. Representing clients in negotiations and court proceedings is where the expertise of insolvency lawyers truly shines. They advocate for their clients’ interests, presenting compelling arguments and evidence to support their case. Whether it’s negotiating with creditors or presenting arguments in court, insolvency lawyers possess the necessary skills to navigate these high-stakes situations. Ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations is a crucial aspect of an insolvency lawyer’s role. They stay up-to-date with the ever-changing legal landscape and ensure that their clients adhere to all relevant laws and regulations. This compliance not only protects their clients from legal repercussions but also helps maintain the integrity of the insolvency process. The Importance of Legal Expertise in Insolvency Cases Insolvency cases require a deep understanding of complex legal frameworks and intricate financial systems. Insolvency lawyers possess the legal expertise necessary to navigate these challenges effectively. Their knowledge and experience allow them to strategize and advocate for stakeholders, ensuring their interests are protected throughout the insolvency process. Legal expertise is crucial in interpreting and applying insolvency laws and regulations to specific cases. Insolvency lawyers have a thorough understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding bankruptcy, liquidation, and debt restructuring. This expertise enables them to provide accurate and tailored advice to their clients, helping them make informed decisions that align with their goals and objectives. Visit https://www.debt.org/bankruptcy/ to get more about what is bankruptcy. Furthermore, insolvency lawyers have extensive experience in dealing with various stakeholders involved in the insolvency process. They understand the dynamics and interests of creditors, debtors, employees, and other parties affected by the insolvency. This understanding allows them to navigate complex negotiations and mediations, seeking favorable outcomes for their clients. Overall, the role of insolvency lawyers is indispensable in the realm of insolvency. Their expertise, guidance, and representation provide much-needed support to businesses and individuals during challenging times. By understanding the complexities of insolvency laws and regulations, insolvency lawyers play a vital role in helping their clients navigate the process and protect their interests. The Intersection of Insolvency Law and Stakeholder Interests When a business faces insolvency, various stakeholders are affected, including employees, creditors, and shareholders. Understanding stakeholder interests is vital in devising strategies that protect their rights and mitigate potential losses. Insolvency is a complex and challenging situation for any business. It is a state where the company’s liabilities exceed its assets, making it unable to meet its financial obligations. In such circumstances, stakeholders become crucial players in determining the outcome of the insolvency process. Defining Stakeholder Interests in a Business Stakeholders in a business refer to individuals or entities with a vested interest in its success. They can include employees who rely on their jobs for income, creditors who are owed money, and shareholders who have invested capital. However, stakeholders go beyond these primary categories. Suppliers, customers, and even the local community can also be considered stakeholders. Suppliers may have outstanding invoices that need to be paid, while customers may have prepaid for goods or services. The local community may be concerned about the impact of the business’s insolvency on the economy and employment rates. Insolvency lawyers comprehensively assess the various stakeholders’ interests to devise appropriate legal strategies to protect them. They analyze the financial and legal implications of the insolvency on each stakeholder group, ensuring that their rights are upheld throughout the process. How Insolvency Impacts Stakeholder Interests Insolvency can significantly impact stakeholder interests. Employees may face job losses or wage cuts, creditors may struggle to recover outstanding debts, and shareholders may suffer financial losses. However, the impact on stakeholders is not limited to these immediate consequences. For employees, the loss of a job can have far-reaching effects on their livelihoods and well-being. It may take time to find new employment, and they may experience financial difficulties in the interim. Creditors, on the other hand, may face challenges in recovering their debts, potentially affecting their own financial stability. Shareholders, who have invested their capital in the business, may see their investments diminish or become worthless. This can have significant implications for their personal finances and long-term financial goals. Insolvency lawyers work diligently to minimize the negative impacts on stakeholders and secure their legal rights

How Insolvency Lawyers Can Help Protect Stakeholder Interests Read More »

First Sale Doctrine

The “first sale doctrine” helps balance the interests of authors against the rights of the public. In short, authors only control the first distribution of any particular copy of his or her work. Once a copy has been distributed to the public, the owner of the copy is able to assert the typical rights of an owner of personal property (subject to limitations on making further copies and public displays). The first sale “exhausts” the author’s rights in the further distribution of that particular copy of the work. Without this limitation, there would be no market for used books or movies or art. History of the First Sale Doctrine The first sale doctrine comes from the English common law tradition of limiting the ability of sellers to restrain the future alienation of property. The Supreme Court first articulated the first sale doctrine in its 1908 decision of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, writing: “[O]ne who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.” 210 U.S. 339, 350 (1908). The first sale doctrine as codified in §109(a) of the Copyright Act, reads: Notwithstanding the provisions of §106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Under the first sale doctrine, it is lawful, for example, for a person to purchase secondhand copies of copyrighted works, to remove the covers or to bind them in new covers, and to resell them to the public. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc. v. Elliot Publ’g Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1942). This careful balance between authors and the public may, however, be losing its stability in the digital age. More works are purchased (or licensed) and stored as digital copies. Changes in the first sale doctrine raises interesting questions about the nature of ownership of software and digital goods. First Sale Allows Lending By virtue of the ﬁrst sale doctrine, U.S. law does not afford the kind of “public lending right” given to the copyright owner in such nations as Great Britain and Germany. U.S. copyright owners can claim no royalty, and can interpose no ban, when third persons—such as public libraries or private lending libraries—lawfully purchase one or two copies of a work and lend them to the public many times, either free or for a price. Section 109(a) negates any such lending right. It is lawful, for example, for a person to purchase secondhand copies of copyrighted works, to remove the covers or to bind them in new covers, and to resell them to the public. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc. v. Elliot Publ’g Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (SDNY 1942). First Sale Doctrine Does Not Allow Creation of Infringing Derivative Works The right to dispose of a lawfully purchased copy of a work does not include the right to makes alteration or incorporate such work in a compilation as a derivative work. For example, a court held that when a defendant purchased old copies of National Geographic magazine, tore out articles, and bound them together for sale with articles relating to a common subject matter, it had infringed on the owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Classiﬁed Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1939). International First Sales Following decades of debate and uncertainty, the Supreme Court has finally held that the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and that the Copyright Act cannot be used to prevent importation of gray-market goods. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013). In Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the clause “lawfully made under this title” in §109(a) of the Copyright Act effectively means “made in geographic area of the United States”. Additionally, the Court upheld the finding that the right of importation provided in §602(a)(1) is subject to the resale and transfer rights provided to owners under the first sale doctrine. See Quality King Distributors, Inc.v.L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U. S. 135 (1998). The Court reversed the holding of the Second Circuit, finding the “lawfully made under this title” is best interpreted as meaning lawful with respect to being in compliance with Copyright Act and not, as the Second Circuit had held, to mean with the physical boundaries where the Copyright Act applies. The Court found that a non-geographical interpretation of the contested clause was a more straightforward reading of the words, noting that pirated copies of an American work that are printed or manufactured abroad are considered unlawfully made under the Copyright Act. See Id. at 1359-60. The Court also notes that the geographically interpretation could give rise to a list of “horribles”, which could severely limit the ability of Americans to re-sell everyday consumer items and of museums or libraries to display and lend books and art. See Id. at 1364-66. Justice Kagan, concurring, writes that in essence what John Wiley is asking the Court to do is to eviscerate the first sale doctrine so that §106(3) does the hard work of preventing unauthorized importation, which should instead be the job of §602(a)(1). Justice Kagan, in what reads like a legislative guide map for Congress, suggests that issue be taken with the Court’s decision in Quality King and not Kirtsaeng. The prior Supreme Court authority on this matter in Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’Anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) confronted the question of whether the first-sale doctrine applies to works manufactured in the United States, but distributed and purchased abroad and then re-imported into the United States. Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’Anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998). To answer that question, the Court analyzed §602(a)(1)1, which gives the U.S. copyright owner the exclusive right of importation. The central issue was whether the first-sale limitation set

First Sale Doctrine Read More »

Breakdown of Exclusive Rights

The Copyright Act enumerates 6 exclusive rights enjoyed by copyright owners. A violation of any one of these rights is copyright infringement. Six Exclusive Rights of § 106 The exclusive rights of § 106 are the rights to: Authorize. Not only do copyright owners have the exclusive right to do the listed acts, but also to authorize others to do them. For example, if A owns the copyright in a novel, which is published by B, and B (without A’s consent) authorizes producer C to make a motion picture based upon the novel, when C’s film is later released A can bring infringement actions against both B and C. The Supreme Court has, in effect, concluded that this “authorize” language furnishes the basis for incorporating into copyright law the principle of contributory infringement. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 435 & n.17 (1984) (manufacturer-seller of videotape recorder is not contributorily liable for home taping of copyrighted television programs, which is fair use under the circumstances). See Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Aveco, Inc., 800 F.3d 59 (3d Cir. 1986). The first three listed exclusive rights—reproduction, preparation of derivative works, and public distribution—are applicable to all forms of copyrightable works listed in § 102(a). The next two listed rights—public performance and public display—are, by their nature, applicable only to certain categories of copyrightable works, and those categories are expressly set forth in §§ 106(4) and (5). For example, the right of public performance attaches to musical works but not to sound recordings; that means that an unauthorized public playing by a disk jockey in a nightclub of a recording of a copyrighted song will constitute an infringement of the song but not of the sound recording, so that the songwriter–author will have legal redress but the record manufacturer and performer will not. If, however, the public playing of the recorded song is “by means of a digital audio transmission,” (streaming podcast, streaming audio, etc.), then this is among the exclusive rights of the sound-recording copyright owner. § 106(6) (added to Copyright Act in a 1995). Infringing Activity Need Not be “Fixed in a Tangible Medium” Although a work cannot be copyrighted until its fixed in a tangible medium of expression, unauthorized conduct can infringe without being fixed. For example, a public sale, performance or display can infringe. Likewise, a copyrighted song or play can be infringed by an unauthorized (and “unfixed”) public performance. Limits on the Exclusive Rights All of the exclusive rights in § 106 are subject to the provisions in § 107 through 122. Those provisions exempt from liability a wide range of reproductions, derivative works, and the like that would otherwise constitute infringements, particularly for nonprofit, charitable or educational purposes. More to read: Navigating Cross-border Property Transactions

Breakdown of Exclusive Rights Read More »

Sovereign Immunity: Suing the State

Sovereign Immunity severely limits lawsuits against the government. It limits copyright infringement lawsuits against both States and the Federal Government. The 11th Amendment generally prevents lawsuits against a state in federal courts. However, sovereign immunity does not prevent injunctions against states. Nor does it prevent infringement suits against state officials acting in their individual capacity (as opposed to their official government capacity). To sue the Federal Government for copyright infringement, a special procedure is required. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). Suing the Federal Government Procedure. Infringement claims against the Federal Government require a special procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), see also, Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2000). First, the plaintiff must file an administrative claim. 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a). If the claim is denied, or after 6 months of inaction from the Government, the plaintiff can then sue the Government for copyright infringement. This lawsuit must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims in D.C. Damages. Compensation is limited to “the minimum statutory damages” for copyright infringement. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b). Suing State Governments Congress can limit the state’s sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 (1989). But a statute limiting sovereign immunity must use explicit language. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985). Congress amended the Copyright Act in 1990 to incorporate explicit language limiting sovereign immunity. The “Copyright Remedy Clarification Act” added two sentences to section 501(a), which deﬁnes copyright infringers. The addition states: As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any ofﬁcer or employee of a State acting in his or her ofﬁcial capacity. [They] shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. In addition, a new section 511 was added, explicitly providing that the state, the state instrumentality, or their employees “shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or any other doctrine of sovereign immunity” from suit in a federal court for copyright infringement, and that the full range of remedies ordinarily available against private defendants is also available in such suits. Constitutional Challenges for Lawsuits Against States The constitutionality of the 1990 amendments were subject to serious question. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Supreme Court overruled earlier precedent and held (5 to 4) that the Commerce Clause is not a source of congressional authority to overturn states’ sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). Then, in 1999, the Court considered whether it was constitutional for Congress to subject the states to patent-infringement or trademark-infringement liability by means of provisions that were essentially the same as those added to the Copyright Act in 1990. In the two Florida Prepaid Postsecondary cases, the Court considered the Commerce and Patent Clauses of the Constitution, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, which empowers Congress to enact legislation implementing the constitutional ban on state deprivation of “property” without due process of law. The Court held (again, 5 to 4) that on the facts presented none of those constitutional sources empowered Congress to abrogate the immunity of the states against federal-court actions for damages for patent or trademark infringement. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (Lanham Trademark Act); Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) (Patent Act). The following year, in Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, the Florida Prepaid Patent Act decision was held dispositive by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in an action for copyright infringement by an author against the University of Houston, a state agency. Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 204 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000). The court held that the 1990 amendments to the Copyright Act purporting to render states fully liable for copyright infringement, including damages, exceeded Congress’s power under both Article I and the 14th Amendment. Practical Significance Given the broad use of copyrighted materials by state instrumentalities—libraries, schools, universities, as well as the wide range of typical executive and administrative agencies—their immunity against damages actions would create a major gap in the enforcement of the copyright laws. More to read: Breakdown of Exclusive Rights

Sovereign Immunity: Suing the State Read More »

Transfer of Copyright Ownership

Copyright ownership can be sold or exchanged, given as a gift, or donated to the public domain. Copyright ownership may be transferred during the owner’s life (inter vivos), or it may pass to the owner’s heirs at death. Copyright Generally Transferrable as Personal Property This basic principle is afﬁrmed in § 201(d)(1) of the Copyright Act, which provides: “The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.” ‘indivisibility’ under the 1909 Copyright Act. The 1976 Act abandoned the concept of indivisibility of copyright ownership along with its more dubious ramiﬁcations. Section 201(d)(2) provides: Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights speciﬁed by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that rig ht, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title. Thus, a person who owns no more than an exclusive license to publicly perform a dramatic work or a musical composition (but not to make or sell copies) is nonetheless regarded as the “owner” of that right. It is that person who can properly bring an action for infringement of that particular exclusive right. § 501(b). The Copyright Act refers to the conveyance of either all rights or less than all rights as a “transfer,” and it eliminates the signiﬁcance of characterizing a transfer as either an assignment or a license. Under current law, what is important in connection with copyright transfers is whether the transfer is exclusive or nonexclusive. The influence of the old law, however, is still felt. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, incorporating doctrine developed under the 1909 Act, has held that the transferee of an exclusive right must, in order to make a valid retransfer of that right to a third party, give notice to and secure the assent of its own initial transferor. Gardner v. Nike, Inc., 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2003). Transfer Requires Signed Writing Section 204(a) provides that “a transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” Because § 101 deﬁnes “transfer of copyright ownership” to include both assignments and exclusive licenses, a grant of an exclusive license of any of the rights or subdivisions of rights in § 106 must be manifested in a signed writing if it is to be effective, by virtue of the copyright “statute of frauds” (a legal term referring to a law that requires a signed writing). § 204(a). The grant of a nonexclusive license—for example, separate grants to several production companies to perform a dramatic work—will be valid even without a signed writting (although, of course, the practicing attorney will routinely give or take such a license by written agreement). Such a transfer can often be inferred simply from the conduct of the parties, without any kind of writing. Effects Assocs. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (short footage was prepared at request of motion picture producer; for lack of a writing, this was found to transfer to the latter an implied nonexclusive license to incorporate the footage, and distribute it, as part of the film). Recording Copyright Transfers at the Copyright Office In the interest of maintaining intelligible records relating to copyright ownership, the Copyright Ofﬁce not only registers initial (and renewal) claims of copyright but also records “any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright,” under § 205(a) of the Copyright Act. Recording a transfer of copyright in a registered work provides constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document. Like the real estate recording system, copyright recordation will protect the transferee (recipient) of the copyright against subsequent conﬂicting transfers, even to good-faith purchasers. § 205(c), (e), (f). Assignment of Rights to Future Technology New technology and media formats can create interesting copyright assignment issues. Often, years after a valid transfer, the parties will dispute whether the grant was meant to embrace some new technology format. This issue first arose in grants of dramatization rights, just before the advent of motion pictures. It arose against when film rights were granted prior to the advent of television. More recently, there have been disputes about whether grants of film rights include the right to make and distribute DVDs, and whether magazine or book publishing rights embrace digital media. Since the contracts were made before the new technology was even known, let alone commercially widespread, it is difficult for the parties to properly define their intentions. The court decisions do not form a consistent pattern. They often place more weight on contract analysis than on analysis of the Copyright Act. Some courts emphasize the lack of awareness of the new technology and the obligation of the drafter (usually the large media company) to make its intentions clear; E.g., Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988) (music incorporated in motion picture, later distributed in videocassettes), other courts emphasize that new technologies will ordinarily be facilitated through a contract presumption favoring transfer of rights. E.g., Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998) (Stravinsky’s transfer of music rights for Disney film Fantasia, later distributed in videocassettes) (relying on Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968)). Most recently, book publishers have been found not to have taken transfers of the right to publish in the form of electronic books, so that several major authors were held to have acted lawfully when conveying “e-Book” rights to digital publishers. Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books, L.L.C., 150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (SDNY 2001). The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001). In Tasini, the

Author name: admin