implied licenses

1. Implied Licenses Several themes Contract created by conduct Interpretation based on context Interpretation to prevent reneging Unjust enrichment, estoppel etc. Deals with the issue of scope Various contexts Commissioned work with inadequate terms Grant one, but need more Grant one, but acquire another General acquiescence Scope and duration issues

3. Foad v MSA, p. 322 GC hires F to do plans for shopping center. GC sells to Claire who then hire MGA Sue for infringement of plans. What law applies? State or federal �Congress did not choose to regulate the conditions under which a copyright holder can grant a nonexclusive copyright license � Thus, so long as it does not conflict with the Copyright Act, state law determines whether a copyright holder has granted such a license. We must ask, then, whether California's parol evidence rule conflicts with federal copyright law or policy. � What issue?

4. Scope of grant Affirmative argument that its covered? �The central purpose of the contract was the production of a set of engineering documents "for 'The Grande Plaza' Commercial Center in the city of Arroyo Grande." Foad agreed to create multiple maps, drawings, and plans for the project and to "process" these documents with the city. GenCom agreed to pay Foad a fee of $175,000. Given the amount of money GenCom paid � and because part of the agreement was for Foad to help GenCom with its application to the city, it would be surprising if the parties had intended for GenCom to seek Foad's permission before using the plans to build the project.� Why call it an implied license? What is the contra argument?

5. Shaver case, p. 330 IAE (Joint Venture) contracts with Shaver to do schematic drawings for airport bldg. Contract in a letter: �[W]e are prepared to complete the required Schematic Design Document preparation for $10,000 subject to adjustment with deductions resulting from participation of staff from your office and your Architectural associate.� JV retains other company to complete the work. Who owns the copyright? Rule? Effects: an implied nonexclusive license has been granted when (1) a person (the licensee) requests the creation of a work, (2) the creator (the licensor) makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee who requested it, and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee-requestor copy and distribute his work.

6. Hilgraeve p.338 H transfers to Delrina: "HILGRAEVE sells, conveys, assigns and transfers to DELRINA � all copyright rights in the Software," "HILGRAEVE has also agreed to transfer the necessary know-how and technical expertise to DELRINA DELAWARE with respect to the Software." �Hilgraeve shall not assert against DELRINA any other intellectual property right, including patent rights, it has or may have in the future, with respect to the production, copying, licensing of the Software, or the exercise by DELRINA of any rights transferred hereunder." Delrina transfers to Semantec H sues for patent infringement Result?

7. PROBLEM 7.3 Munn hired Lindner to photograph mirrored picture frames manufactured and offered for sale by Munn. Lindner photographed approximately 130 different frames. Munn and Lindner understood that the photographs would be used as color slides by Munn�s sales agents. The invoice submitted by Lindner specified: "Re: Photography of frames. Usage: For C-Prints to be used by sales people." "C-Prints" is shorthand for negative color prints. Later, Munn used the photographs in a catalogue, reproduced them in 5,000 brochures, and offered them to clients as magazine "comps" or publicity releases. Defendants also provided Lindner's photographs to Photo-2-Art so they could be scanned into a computer for manipulation and displayed to customers. Lindner sues for infringement. Munn claims that its uses were licensed. What result?