3 ms·

Any citations? Why would I agree to pay someone per performance, instead of paying someone for a license to each performance? If I break the license agreement

by gohrt 11y ago

Any citations? Why would I agree to pay someone per performance, instead of paying someone for a license to each performance? If I break the license agreement, Warner can void my license, and then pursue their copyright claim against me.

sandworm101 11y ago
The classic case involves the mouthwash Listerine. The guy who invented it kept it as a trade secret (no patent). He formed a contract with a manufacturer that said, in short, that they would pay him money for each bottle sold using the formula. They all thought this would go on forever. But then the secret got out and others started selling products using the same formula. Since there was no tradesecret anymore the manufacture argued the contract was void. It wasn't. "But that does not mean that one who acquires a secret formula or a trade secret through a valid and binding contract is then enabled to escape from an obligation to which he bound himself simply because the secret is discovered by a third party or by the general public." Warner-Lambert v. Reynolds 178 F. Supp. 655 (1959) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/178/655/1642490/ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/17... Now this is tradesecret, not copyright, and an old case, but the principal remains. Contracts can be drafted between parties that go beyond the rights created by IP law. Any attorney worth his wage learned of this quirk of contract law during school and should have drafted any licensing agreements to accommodate ... but just maybe they didn't.
- poizan42 11y ago
  But in the case of Happy Birthday licenses the contract would have been agreed to on false pretense, wouldn't that count for something?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Looks like a fine line - it seems elsewhere sandworm is pointing out that Warner would have to engage in fraud, or willful deception, in order to validate the contract. The wrinkle I'd like to consider is that if Warner provided the evidence during discovery that was material to the copyright being ruled abandoned, meaning it was in their possession all along, then does willful ignorance manifested in strong-arming payment for the rights to lyrics un-owned matter? Hmmm.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      They did. Very late. And they most likely deliberately 'smeared' the one part of the page that showed that they had, all along, evidence that they did not own the copyright.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    It seems the takeaway is that if you're going to sign a contract because you're concerned about copyright/patent infringement, then you should get an IP lawyer because law is weird (and also make sure they're aware if you think there's an question about the validity of the copyright/patent claim).

by gohrt 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

The classic case involves the mouthwash Listerine. The guy who invented it kept it as a trade secret (no patent). He formed a contract with a manufacturer that said, in short, that they would pay him money for each bottle sold using the formula. They all thought this would go on forever. But then the secret got out and others started selling products using the same formula. Since there was no tradesecret anymore the manufacture argued the contract was void. It wasn't. "But that does not mean that one who acquires a secret formula or a trade secret through a valid and binding contract is then enabled to escape from an obligation to which he bound himself simply because the secret is discovered by a third party or by the general public." Warner-Lambert v. Reynolds 178 F. Supp. 655 (1959) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/178/655/1642490/ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/17... Now this is tradesecret, not copyright, and an old case, but the principal remains. Contracts can be drafted between parties that go beyond the rights created by IP law. Any attorney worth his wage learned of this quirk of contract law during school and should have drafted any licensing agreements to accommodate ... but just maybe they didn't.

poizan42 11y ago
But in the case of Happy Birthday licenses the contract would have been agreed to on false pretense, wouldn't that count for something?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Looks like a fine line - it seems elsewhere sandworm is pointing out that Warner would have to engage in fraud, or willful deception, in order to validate the contract. The wrinkle I'd like to consider is that if Warner provided the evidence during discovery that was material to the copyright being ruled abandoned, meaning it was in their possession all along, then does willful ignorance manifested in strong-arming payment for the rights to lyrics un-owned matter? Hmmm.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    They did. Very late. And they most likely deliberately 'smeared' the one part of the page that showed that they had, all along, evidence that they did not own the copyright.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  It seems the takeaway is that if you're going to sign a contract because you're concerned about copyright/patent infringement, then you should get an IP lawyer because law is weird (and also make sure they're aware if you think there's an question about the validity of the copyright/patent claim).