Warranting copyright

schmooschmoo

In an agreement for the use of content by a client, one stipulation is that:

"ME warrants to CLIENTS CONTENTS' copyright and has no copyright holders other than ME"

ME being me, CLIENTS being them and CONTENTS being what they're purchasing - a video for use in a single episode of TV show.

The video is available to view publicly on YouTube. I don't intent to remove it now, nor do I intend to give up my existing copyright or refrain from selling it to clients in a similar manner in the future. None of this was in question before the agreement. I am the only owner/producer of the video and can confirm that nobody else has a copyright on it.

Am I meant to read that they wish to own the video and expect me to transfer my copyright to them?

Or is this just confirming that my ownership of the copyright is to be extended for their use per agreement (a single episode) and that I can confirm nobody else owns the copyright?

Thanks

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

schmooschmoo wrote: »

In an agreement for the use of content by a client, one stipulation is that:

"ME warrants to CLIENTS CONTENTS' copyright and has no copyright holders other than ME"

ME being me, CLIENTS being them and CONTENTS being what they're purchasing - a video for use in a single episode of TV show.

The video is available to view publicly on YouTube. I don't intent to remove it now, nor do I intend to give up my existing copyright or refrain from selling it to clients in a similar manner in the future. None of this was in question before the agreement. I am the only owner/producer of the video and can confirm that nobody else has a copyright on it.

Am I meant to read that they wish to own the video and expect me to transfer my copyright to them?

Or is this just confirming that my ownership of the copyright is to be extended for their use per agreement (a single episode) and that I can confirm nobody else owns the copyright?

Thanks

i don't know what they mean but you should licence the use of the program once only and do not sell the copyright. You are correct "what they're purchasing is the content for use in a single episode of TV show.*" They cannot buy the copyright unless you want to sell it regardless of youtube. is it your youtube it is on or has someone else used it.just curious?



*or however many times you would agree. I think the tv program creditsshould credit you with your section.. X film clip copyright y person

Victor

In such a condition, they want to make sure that they aren't sued by someone else claiming copyright.

There would / may be a different condition stipulating they want exclusivity / to buy the copyright.

schmooschmoo

Sydney Enough Log wrote: »

i don't know what they mean but you should licence the use of the program once only and do not sell the copyright. You are correct "what they're purchasing is the content for use in a single episode of TV show.*" They cannot buy the copyright unless you want to sell it regardless of youtube. is it your youtube it is on or has someone else used it.just curious?



*or however many times you would agree. I think the tv program creditsshould credit you with your section.. X film clip copyright y person

Yes, I've stipulated that the video is only to be used in a single episode of a show and they included this in the agreement. A fee was agreed upon informally for this use but copyright was never discussed under than another informal question regarding whether the video was mine and I said it was.

It's the agreement we're both signing that has the wording in the original question that's caused me to wonder if I should be concerned. If since asked them directly and am waiting on clarification. I wasn't sure if it was just me who found the wording on that line slightly difficult to interpret.

It's my youtube channel, my video, and not under anybody else's copyright. The video is completely new material not composed of anything previously existing. I've no concerns about the legal side of that.

Thanks!

schmooschmoo

Victor wrote: »

In such a condition, they want to make sure that they aren't sued by someone else claiming copyright.

There would / may be a different condition stipulating they want exclusivity / to buy the copyright.

I can understand this, of course. There are lots of other parts of the agreement that go into detail of covering them from liability and ensuring its under my copyright and not infringing anyone elses rights or copyright. It's all understood and agreeable.

There's no other stipulation about obtaining copyright or exclusivity. The part I included is the only mention of the copyright in relation to how it works between me and the client.

I interpreted 'warranting the contents copyright to them' as authorising the copyright for their use as we agreed. It's probably harmless. But it niggles me that it could read as transferring the contents copyright to them. The verb warranting isn't 100% clear to me in this scenario in the exact choice of words they used. I prefer not to drag these agreements out with the client but I chose to ask them to clarify it in this case so I'm waiting to hear back.

Thanks

Peregrinus

"Warrant" doesn't mean "authorise the use of", or anything like that. In this context, it means "guarantee to be true".

So what this provision means is "I guarantee that it is true that I, and I alone, own the copyright in this material".

The signficance of the warranty is this: Suppose you pay me for the right to make a copy of the material for a specified purpose. You make the copy and use it for that purpose. Joe Bloggs then turns up, saying "Hold on! This material belongs to me!" and he sues you for infringing his copyright in the material. It turns out the material does belong to him, so he wins the suit and recovers damages from you. You can then turn around and sue me because I guaranteed to you that I, and I alone, had the copyright, and by relying on my guarantee you unintentionally incurred a liablity to Joe Bloggs, the real holder of the copyright.

A provision of this kind is standard in agreements which licence the use of intellectual property. Nobody is going to pay you for the use of the material unless they have some reason to think that you own it, and they have protection against the (hopefully very remote) risk that it turns out that someone else actually owns it.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

schmooschmoo wrote: »

Yes, I've stipulated that the video is only to be used in a single episode of a show and they included this in the agreement. A fee was agreed upon informally for this use but copyright was never discussed under than another informal question regarding whether the video was mine and I said it was.

It's the agreement we're both signing that has the wording in the original question that's caused me to wonder if I should be concerned. If since asked them directly and am waiting on clarification. I wasn't sure if it was just me who found the wording on that line slightly difficult to interpret.

It's my youtube channel, my video, and not under anybody else's copyright. The video is completely new material not composed of anything previously existing. I've no concerns about the legal side of that.

Thanks!

but why would they give you a fee unless they accept you are the owner of the copyright?

schmooschmoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Warrant" doesn't mean "authorise the use of", or anything like that. In this context, it means "guarantee to be true".

So what this provision means is "I guarantee that it is true that I, and I alone, own the copyright in this material".

The signficance of the warranty is this: Suppose you pay me for the right to make a copy of the material for a specified purpose. You make the copy and use it for that purpose. Joe Bloggs then turns up, saying "Hold on! This material belongs to me!" and he sues you for infringing his copyright in the material. It turns out the material does belong to him, so he wins the suit and recovers damages from you. You can then turn around and sue me because I guaranteed to you that I, and I alone, had the copyright, and by relying on my guarantee you unintentionally incurred a liablity to Joe Bloggs, the real holder of the copyright.

A provision of this kind is standard in agreements which licence the use of intellectual property. Nobody is going to pay you for the use of the material unless they have some reason to think that you own it, and they have protection against the (hopefully very remote) risk that it turns out that someone else actually owns it.

Thank you, that was exactly the definition I'd been researching and couldn't seem to find. Just a lot of variations on 'authorise'. I heard back from the client and they mirrored your interpretation, so all is good.

schmooschmoo

Sydney Enough Log wrote: »

but why would they give you a fee unless they accept you are the owner of the copyright?

I'm not sure I understand your question? A fee was only agreed upon when discussing the possibility. Nothing will exchange between either party until an agreement is signed and we agree that I am the sole copyright holder.

I was asking if they wanted to transfer the copyright at this point, as in, on the agreement being signed. An agreement could just as easily include transferring ownership/copyright for a fee as it could allow for licensing the video for single use, while retaining the copyright as it was- if that is what you were asking?

Peregrinus

schmooschmoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your question? A fee was only agreed upon when discussing the possibility. Nothing will exchange between either party until an agreement is signed and we agree that I am the sole copyright holder.

Just to be clear - they are not agreeing that you are the sole copyright holder. How would they know whether you are or not? They are accepting and acting on your assurance that you are the sole copyright holder not because they know that it is true, but because they know they can sue you if it isn't true.

Another way to think of this is to see this as a risk allocation mechanism. There's a risk that someone else, not a party to this agreement, actually owns or part-owns this intellectual property. Who is bearing that risk? Because of the warranty you are given, you are bearing it.