Comments on: Due Diligence Monday: Copyrights http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2006/10/30/due-diligence-monday-copyrights/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=due-diligence-monday-copyrights Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Glen http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2006/10/30/due-diligence-monday-copyrights/comment-page-1/#comment-50925 Glen Wed, 14 May 2008 22:03:40 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/wp/?p=519#comment-50925 "If that was done without a written agreement, you have an implied license to use the application (the details of that implied license being in question) and no more." Hello, I realize that it has been some time since this was posted. I am a 3rd year law student researching an area of law that is new to me. After 2 days of research, I think I have a (very) basic grasp of copyright law. However, I find myself stuck with a specific issue. The quoted passage from the original post is exactly the situation that I am researching. I am thrilled to hear that the party paying for the work would have an implied license to use the application, but am unable to find any authority that confirms this. All the case law that I have found requires 3 elements for an implied nonexclusive license: 1) the licensee requested the creation of the application; 2) the licensor created and delivered it; and 3)licensor intended for the licensee to copy and distribute the application. The first 2 are easy, but the 3rd just kills it. Any ideas out there? It seems to me that the law for "work-for-hire" and implied license regarding independent contractors is outdated. Thanks! glen “If that was done without a written agreement, you have an implied license to use the application (the details of that implied license being in question) and no more.”
Hello, I realize that it has been some time since this was posted. I am a 3rd year law student researching an area of law that is new to me. After 2 days of research, I think I have a (very) basic grasp of copyright law. However, I find myself stuck with a specific issue.

The quoted passage from the original post is exactly the situation that I am researching. I am thrilled to hear that the party paying for the work would have an implied license to use the application, but am unable to find any authority that confirms this.

All the case law that I have found requires 3 elements for an implied nonexclusive license: 1) the licensee requested the creation of the application; 2) the licensor created and delivered it; and 3)licensor intended for the licensee to copy and distribute the application.

The first 2 are easy, but the 3rd just kills it. Any ideas out there?

It seems to me that the law for “work-for-hire” and implied license regarding independent contractors is outdated.

Thanks!
glen

]]>