4 ms·
But in the case of Happy Birthday licenses the contract would have been agreed to on false pretense, wouldn't that count for something?
by 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 agoLooks 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 agoThey 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 agoIt 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).