<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Joint authorship</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp;amp Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:10:23-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:16:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Ninth Circuit:  Heirs of &quot;Pink Panther&quot; coauthor do not retain interest in copyright in the films</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/6/25/Ninth-Circuit--Heirs-of-Pink-Panther-coauthor-do-not-retain-interest-in-copyright-in-the-films</link>
				<description>
				
				&lt;p&gt;In a decision last week, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit&quot;&gt;Ninth Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  affirmed the district court&amp;#39;s grant of summary judgment in a copyright case, holding that a coauthor of a story treatment is not necessarily a coauthor of a motion picture produced based on that treatment, and the factors applied to determine coauthorship led to the conclusion that the coauthor of the treatment was not a coauthor of the motion picture.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this case, that meant the heirs of one coauthor of the treatment that formed the basis for the film &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057413/&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The Pink Panther&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;  could not assert an interest in the copyright in the motion picture.&amp;nbsp; Likewise, renewal of the copyright in the motion picture had no effect on the copyright of the treatment, as its copyright is separate and distinct under the law.&amp;nbsp; Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court&amp;#39;s grant of summary judgment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More on &lt;em&gt;Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Works for hire</category>				
				
				<category>Joint authorship</category>				
				
				<category>Assignments</category>				
				
				<category>Derivative works</category>				
				
				<category>Copyrights</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:16:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/6/25/Ninth-Circuit--Heirs-of-Pink-Panther-coauthor-do-not-retain-interest-in-copyright-in-the-films</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			
			
			<item>
				<title>First Circuit:  Copyright statute of limitations applies to accounting claims between joint authors</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2007/12/19/First-Circuit--Copyright-statute-of-limitations-applies-to-accounting-claims-between-joint-authors</link>
				<description>
				
				&lt;p&gt;In a decision last week, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit&quot;&gt;First Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  held that a purported assignee of a joint author of a copyrighted work was barred by the Copyright Act&amp;#39;s three-year statute of limitations from seeking an accounting of profits, even though the state statute of limitations for seeking such an accounting had not yet run.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The plaintiff had purportedly acquired rights in a copyrighted work, &lt;u&gt;Das Hummel-Buch&lt;/u&gt;. from the heirs of a joint author of the work, and brought suit for an accounting of profits on the original work and deriviative works, commonly known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mihummel.com/&quot;&gt;Hummel figurines&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;nbsp; However, the plaintiff could only assert the state law claim if it first established its ownership interest in the copyright.&amp;nbsp; As a result, because copyright ownership was an essential first determination in the matter at hand, the Copyright Act&amp;#39;s three-year statute of limitations applied, barring the claim, even though the applicable state statute of limitations had not expired.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More detail of &lt;em&gt;Cambridge Literary Props., Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.m.b.H.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Statute of limitations</category>				
				
				<category>Copyrights</category>				
				
				<category>Joint authorship</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:41:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2007/12/19/First-Circuit--Copyright-statute-of-limitations-applies-to-accounting-claims-between-joint-authors</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>