43
« on: July 02, 2011, 04:03:35 AM »
"In one litigation in Federal court that I have seen,Getty did produce the artists agreement and it did transfer to Getty the right to bring the claim among other rights."
It may have purported to transfer the right to bring the claim "among other rights" but that doesn't work. You're using the same logic as Righthaven -- suggesting the right to sue is some separate right that may be transferred. As the Righthaven Judge said. No go.
If Getty had the right to sue it was because they got a section 106 right (in whole or subdivided) and as a consequence was entitled to sue per 501(d).
But you know this. Why are you speaking like Righthaven is the question ?
"Now there may be argument that just transferring those rights alone is insufficient, but that has not been tested in court yet."
What are you referring to as "those rights alone " ? If you mean the right to sue, again, this is not a right that can be transferred. 501(d) says who has standing. And it seems clear although Righthaven just tested it and lost. If you mean by "those rights alone" instead some subset of the totality of 106 rights, it also seems clear from 501(d) the exclusive licensee has standing:
"The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411 [registration], to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. "
If I own a photo. I can license to Mr. X exclusive worldwide usage of my 106 rights on Monday and to Mr. Y on Tuesday. Mr. X would have standing against any infringers on Monday and Mr. Y against any infringers on Tuesday. What's the issue ?
What are you saying "hasn't been tested in court yet" ?
Show Posts
