'What Exactly Are You Implying?': The Elusive Nature of the Implied Copyright License

Christopher M. Newman

George Mason University School of Law

April 24, 2014

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 501-559, 2014
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-02

Every copyright lawyer knows Effects Associates v. Cohen, the case of the exploding alien yogurt. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion raises — and doesn’t really answer — troubling doctrinal questions about the nature of an implied copyright license: Is it a kind of contract, and if so, what kind? What principles govern whether one exists and whether it can be terminated? Is it transferable by the licensee? Does it bind assignees of the copyright? And what sources of law should courts look to in deciding these matters?

Building on prior work about the nature of a license interest, I provide an account of implied copyright license doctrine that seeks to answer these questions while staving off two different misconceptions. One is the faulty premise that licenses are contractual obligations, and that therefore findings of implied license must be somehow justified in accordance with state contract law. The other is the view that implied license is an open-ended invitation for courts to override owners’ rights of control in service of various policy goals.

Distinguishing implied license from the adjacent doctrines of estoppel, exhaustion, and compulsory license, I show it to be rooted, not in contract, but in the same implied consent that is recognized as providing a defense to property and other torts. Implied license doctrine uses context-based default rules to allocate the burdens of seeking or disclaiming grants of permission, thereby discouraging opportunism and reducing transaction costs without harming copyright owners’ legitimate interests in control. In addition, I show how explaining implied license doctrine through a property framework resolves the problems of irrevocability, transferability, and choice of law that have long led to confusion in this part of the law.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 60

Keywords: implied contract, property theory, Effects v. Cohen, Oddo v. Ries, Foad Consulting, choice of law, federal preemption, majoritarian default rule, penalty default rule, equitable estoppel, exhaustion, compulsory license, irrevocability, assignability, Erie, Unarco Industries, Clearfield Trust

JEL Classification: K11

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: January 26, 2014 ; Last revised: May 22, 2014

Suggested Citation

Newman, Christopher M., 'What Exactly Are You Implying?': The Elusive Nature of the Implied Copyright License (April 24, 2014). Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 501-559, 2014; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-02. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2384945

Contact Information

Christopher M. Newman (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

George Mason Law School Logo

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,081
Downloads: 111
Download Rank: 182,120
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.188 seconds