From: Darby Orcutt <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 19:21:26 -0500
Thanks, Laura. This practice always seemed disingenuous at best, so
this citation is great to have! Best, Darby
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:15:44 -0600
>
> 17 USC 101 (the definitions portion of the Copyright Act) defines
> transfer. An "exclusive license" is a transfer. So "retaining
> copyright" but "exclusively licensing" all of the rights of copyright
> is in fact a transfer of copyright. Also, it's still a transfer even
> with time or geographic limitations, if the license is exclusive.
>
> A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage,
> exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
> hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
> comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
> place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
>
> ----------------------------------
> Laura Markstein Quilter / [log in to unmask]
> Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher
>
> Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:30:23 -0500
> >>
> >> Maybe I misread the blog posting -- it seemed to me to say that one
> >> option for an author is to transfer partial copyright, rather than the
> >> full set of rights.
> >>
> >> We know that copyright can be divided, so one could theoretically
> >> transfer certain rights and retain the rest. This type of division of
> >> rights can be called a license, for sure -- but licenses can be
> >> identified for any given period of time. For an author's license to
> >> be a true "partial transfer of copyright," wouldn't it need to specify
> >> that it is for the entire duration of the applicable copyright period?
> >>
> >> Are authors' licenses to publishers generally written with this kind
> >> of specific language, in effect making them serve as a partial
> >> copyright transfer?
> >>
> >> In the case of Haworth below, a non-exclusive license can't possibly
> >> be a partial transfer of copyrights, can it?
> >>
> >> Or maybe I'm splitting hairs here. Or asking my question poorly. I
> >> suppose I'm saying that a partial copyright transfer and a license are
> >> not the same thing.
> >>
> >> Thoughts are welcomed. Ann
|
