Property, intangible

a blog about ownership of intellectual property rights and its licensing

Executing on Copyrights to Satisfy a Judgment

I previously reported on the matter of Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, that is, a law firm versus George Clinton of Parliament-Funkadelic fame. Clinton owed Hendricks & Lewis a lot of money but didn’t pay. In the opinion I previously covered, the lower court appointed a receiver who was given the authority to maximize the value of some Clinton sound recordings to satisfy the Hendricks & Lewis judgment. in order to do so, the district court had to opine on a provision of the Copyright Act, section 201(e), that prohibits the transfer of copyright by a governmental agency except in bankruptcy. The district court held that the section didn’t apply.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court’s interpretation, as well as the conclusion that the intangible property of copyrights were subject to execution to satisfy a judgment under the law of the State of Washington and that the district court had not abused its discretion in appointing a receiver.

Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, No. 13-35010 (9th Cirl. June 23, 2014).

Creative Commons License
The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Share Button

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *