[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Read Effects Assoc. Case - It's worth a good laugh



No.  Work for hire is between an employer and employee. The FX house was 
not an employee. 




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/07/01 08:49 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Read Effects Assoc. Case - It's worth a good laugh


Implied license?  Wouldn't this have been a work-for-hire?  (And as a work
for hire, wouldn't rights be witheld until payment in full?  Is there any
equivilant in work-for-hire situations to a mechanic's lien?)

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:42 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Read Effects Assoc. Case - It's worth a good
> laugh
> 
> 
> While not directly applicable, read the case. It's hilarious. 
> Not only the 
> case itself but the writing of the judge....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Douglas Hudson" <patentbuster@home.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 11/03/01 06:41 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Implied License to 
> Watch the Movie
> 
> 
> 908 F.2d 555, *; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12121, **;
> 15 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1559; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26,605
> 
...
> 
> OVERVIEW: Plaintiff, who produced special effects footage for a movie,
> brought a copyright infringement suit against defendants, the 
> producers of
> the movie. The lower court granted summary judgment, holding that 
> plaintiff
> had given an implied license for the footage to be used in 
> the movie. The
> court noted that 17 U.S.C.S.  204(a) invalidated the transfer of 
> ownership
> of a copyright unless it was in writing but that there was a narrow
> exception for implied licenses. The court agreed with the 
> judgment below
> that plaintiff had given defendants an implied nonexclusive 
> license to use
> the special effects footage. Although defendants had not paid 
> in full, the
> court stated this was not a condition precedent to the finding of an 
> implied
> license. Therefore the court affirmed the grant of summary 
> judgment by the
> federal court but noted that plaintiff was free to bring a 
> state law claim
> for breach of contract.
>