According to Robin Ray v. Classic FM the British Supreme Court held that the contractor providing the services owns the intellectual property of the materials created by the client. The decision is a useful guide for entrepreneurs as this is one of the most important cases in determining whether an intellectual property agent can be used for intellectual property that has not been explicitly signed by a written agreement. a highly acclaimed classical musician of England who has classical music encyclopedic knowledge. Classic FM participated in the UK in 1991 to compile the radio station repertoire, compose playlists, list playlists, and evaluate their popularity in each category. The contract did not deal with intellectual property rights. The consultancy agreement originally ran for 11 months, but Mr. Ray's work was favorable to Classic FM and its services were extended until 1997. Finally, 50,000 numbers were categorized. The results of the work were incorporated into a database that was selected on a rotating basis by music and prevented exaggeration.
The project was successful. After about 5 years, Classic FM recommended the authorization of the database for overseas companies. Ray raised an objection and initiated the procedure to prevent Classic FM permission from being used outside the United Kingdom on the grounds that it was the author of the files embedded in the database.
Supreme Court Decision
The Truth Light of the Supreme Court ruled that, in the case of consultancy, the author retained the copyright with the opposite effect in the absence of explicit or implicit terms. If the counselor's services are carried out for an express purpose, the court will easily indicate a service contract that the customer is entitled to use for that purpose. In this case, Classic FM has always sought to exploit Mr Ray's work in the UK. Until 1996, Classic FM aims to use Mr Ray's work overseas. The court did not agree to be bound by the agreement that Classic FM is eligible for its overseas job. The classic FM was prevented from using your database abroad, with Ray's agreement, with which license fees have to be paid.
When giving permissions in this way, the court can only do so with the parties' intention. If authorization is required, the license will be subject to the minimum required to enforce the parties' intentions during the contract. Copyright terms assigned to customers are exceptionally rare, as most often the exclusive license will have the same effect in the law.
The judge considered that the contracting party had copyrighted certain, explicit or supposed counter-effects. The contract explicitly states which party is entitled to copyright, and mere fact that the contractor's commission – performed by the contractor – is not sufficient to give copyrights to the customer. In the absence of a right to participate, the client must be entitled to obtain the right within the express or implied period of the contract.
The decision means that the contracting parties retain the copyright in the absence of an implied or explicit expression. Tacit authorization should be reasonable and fair; necessary to ensure the business effectiveness of the contract, which is clearly expressed and not contradicted by the express duration of the contract and is obviously self-evident. Rights to Intellectual Property Rights and rights to use rights should not be left accidental; it is desirable to use the unwanted implicated licenses that allow the customer to use a job and rather specify the goals that can be used at the beginning of the use. Therefore, it is important to document the purpose of the assignment and intended use for the authorship created during the engagement.
Source by sbobet