Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to > > demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B > > regarding W. > > Of course it does, since X has no right to enter into agreements > with B regarding W without permission of A.
You are mistaken Hyman. X may well enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. A's only claim agains B is A's proportional share of monetary profits gained by B. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html "One of the authors can use the entire work as they please without seeking permission from the other joint author(s). However, if a single author makes a profit through the exploitation of the joint work, then the profits will have to be shared with the other joint authors." http://www.smhllaw.com/2009/08/21/joint-authorship-and-the-copyright-act-what-happens-when-there-are-multiple-contributors-to-a-song/ "The main issue under consideration by the court was whether the song was a joint work. This is because authors of a joint work each have the right to grant non-exclusive licenses for the work. [2] [2] Note that unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, a joint author must still account to the other joint author(s) for profits." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
