by Pamela Chestek • April 17, 2009 • copyright
(Read yesterday’s post below if you haven’t yet)
The court identified two breaks. The easy one was the last one – the oral assignment from Marx Toys, Inc. to the plaintiff. Of course, under § 204(a), a transfer of copyright ownership must be in writing or by operation of law.
There was a second break though, higher in the chain. The plaintiff didn’t produce a document establishing that Chemical Bank owned the copyrights when it transferred them. The subsequent Bill of Sale stated that the copyrights were “repossessed by the Seller from Louis Marx & Co. or its affiliated companies in the exercise of its rights under a security agreement,” but there was no documentation of the actual transfer of ownership to Chemical Bank.
The question with no answer – why the defects weren’t corrected before summary judgment.
American Plastic Equipment, Inc. v. Toytrackerz, LLC, Civ. No. 07-2253-DJW, 2009 WL 902422 (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2009).
© 2009 Pamela Chestek