The 1909 law was then replaced by the US Copyright Act of 1976. Under this rule, ownership of copyright in an independent contractor’s creative work is deemed to vest with the entity that provided the impetus and funding for the work, not with the contractor.
During the 1960s, judges devised a way of interpreting the 1909 law, in so far as it relates to copyright ownership, according to what became known as the “instance and expense” rule. The Law in this case is a bit convoluted, but, fortunately, we only need to concern ourselves with a few key points.įirstly, the modern version of The Game of Life is subject to US copyright law dating from 1909. The case concerned Hasbro’s The Game of Life. The USA, like the UK, is a common law jurisdiction, and it just so happens that a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for both the toy and licensing industries – and with an issue of common law at its heart – recently reached the US Supreme Court. In a common law jurisdiction, you may not always know where you stand, but, theoretically at least, the law may move with the times and not simply be a blunt instrument. This can result in law without a corresponding statute at all – such as passing off in the UK – or handy rules and guidelines for interpreting the more woolly parts of statute. In common law countries, judges are able to make up certain aspects of the law as they go along. It’s a system that creates clarity and certainty, but possibly also rigidity and inflexibility. In other words, the government creates law by setting it down in writing in the statute book, and the job of the courts and the judges is to apply it. In countries without common law, everything depends on statute. With law, the world divides into two – countries with common law and countries without it. It’s the kind of thing that keeps me up a night.
Have you ever wondered how the law works? Probably not. Victor Caddy – Trade Mark Attorney at Wynne-Jones IP – looks at a recent case involving The Game of Life that had the potential to shake up the “instance and expense” rule around copyrights.
0 kommentar(er)
