Volunteer Created Work: Who Owns It?

[PayrollHRGuy]

If that's the case, and there was no written agreement, can't the copyright holder simply say the works were a lease? Wouldn't the burden of proof be on the organization to show they weren't?

The burden of proof would be on the entity making the claim.

If I filed suit against you and said you owed me $100 it would be up to me to prove the debt.

 

[quincy]

Thank you. I suppose we're going to have to go talk to a lawyer.

In general, it sounds like a copyright doesn't mean much, if the person holding the copyright can't control usage rights to their work, when only a verbal agreement was made to use the material, as long as the volunteer remained with the organization. Maybe I'm not understanding the same meaning of ownership, here. To me, if I own something, I can take it back or control the usage of it, unless I signed something saying otherwise.

Furthermore, according to [link removed]

According to 17 U.S. Code § 106, the copyright holder has the rights to...

If that's the case, and there was no written agreement, can't the copyright holder simply say the works were a lease? Wouldn't the burden of proof be on the organization to show they weren't?

A license to use copyrighted works does not have to be in writing. Oral permission from a copyright holder is adequate.

No rights are transferred with oral permission (ownership in the copyrights are not changed), because exclusive rights in a copyrighted work need to be transferred in writing. But the license is no less valid because it is oral. It is just harder to prove.

The problem for the copyright holder/volunteer in this case is that he created a logo for the organization. This logo now identifies the organization. It is the organization's trademark.

The copyright holder would have a difficult time proving he did not grant the organization permission to use his works - and the permission granted by the copyright holder could easily be viewed as a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to use the logo.

Organizations and companies generally do not change their names or logos (trademarks) because these are what distinguish them from all other organizations and companies. It is how consumers know them.

The volunteer, as said earlier, has retained rights in the works he has licensed. He, however, has limited the ways in which he can exercise these rights.

Again, the volunteer should review facts with an IP attorney in his area.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The copyright holder would have a difficult time proving he did not grant the organization permission to use his works - and the permission granted by the copyright holder could easily be viewed as a limited, nonexclusive, irrevocable license to use the logo.

It would be incredibly important to know exactly what the agreement was, if any was expressly made at all, about the use of the logo. Whether the right to use the logo was perpetual/irrevocable is a very fact specific thing. So I agree that it would be important that:

Again, the volunteer should review facts with an IP attorney in his area.

 

[quincy]

It would be incredibly important to know exactly what the agreement was, if any was expressly made at all, about the use of the logo. Whether the right to use the logo was perpetual/irrevocable is a very fact specific thing. So I agree that it would be important that:

I agree it could come down to the oral agreement and what each party remembers the agreement to be.

The fact that what the volunteer created was a logo complicates the matter. The logo is of no use to the volunteer. He cannot use the logo without infringing on the organization's trademark rights. The organization (arguably) could not use the logo without permission from the volunteer without infringing on any (possible) copyrights.

As mentioned earlier, very few logos are creative enough to be protected under copyright law.

Not mentioned yet is whether there has been federal registration of the logo (or other material created by the volunteer) - and, if registered, under whose name the material is registered.

A personal review of the specifics is necessary.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I think you would have a hard time convincing judge or jury that the agreement for something like a logo that you created for the non-profit wasn't intended to be used in perpetuity by the non-profit. To do so you would need some hard proof to the contrary.

 

[quincy]

I think you would have a hard time convincing judge or jury that the agreement for something like a logo that you created for the non-profit wasn't intended to be used in perpetuity by the non-profit. To do so you would need some hard proof to the contrary.

I agree. I see the organization as having established rights in the logo that the volunteer would have a hard time challenging successfully.

The volunteer might be able to negotiate with the organization a transfer in writing of all of his rights in the works, in exchange for X amount of dollars. The organization might be willing to pay the volunteer to eliminate a lawsuit threat.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree. I see the organization as having established rights in the logo that the volunteer would have a hard time challenging successfully.

The volunteer might be able to negotiate with the organization a transfer in writing of all of his rights in the works, in exchange for X amount of dollars. The organization might be willing to pay the volunteer to eliminate a lawsuit threat.

I agree, but it won't be a lawsuit lottery. It would be likely to be something proportionally modest.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think any of us know enough to say that.

Your own post that I replied to implied that. You, yourself said that:

I agree. I see the organization as having established rights in the logo that the volunteer would have a hard time challenging successfully.

If the volunteer would have a hard time challenging it successfully then the volunteer could not expect much more than something proportionally modest to "go away".

 

[quincy]

I don't think any of us know enough to say how much value the volunteer's work has to the organization or how much the organization might pay for exclusive rights.

The value of the work done by the volunteer depends on several factors, including the connection by consumers of the logo with the organization and the organization's reliance on the logo as an identifier in their promotional materials.

It is important to remember that trademark rights are gained by the use of the trademark in commerce. The organization has purportedly used the logo for a year, establishing trademark rights in the mark.

I believe it will be difficult for the volunteer to halt the use of the logo. I don't know how much the logo is worth to the organization, however. For example, the Nike swoosh has more value than other less famous logos because it is recognized by most consumers as a Nike identifier.

 

[mikeWizowsky]

The fact that what the volunteer created was a logo complicates the matter. The logo is of no use to the volunteer. He cannot use the logo without infringing on the organization's trademark rights. The organization (arguably) could not use the logo without permission from the volunteer without infringing on any (possible) copyrights.

The volunteer, as said earlier, has retained rights in the works he has licensed.

What rights would those be in practical, everyday application? The only license that was given was, 'You can use these as long as I'm here.' which was overheard by someone else involved in the conversation.

It would be incredibly important to know exactly what the agreement was, if any was expressly made at all, about the use of the logo. Whether the right to use the logo was perpetual/irrevocable is a very fact specific thing. So I agree that it would be important that:

No, the logo was never registered.

Remember, we're not just talking about a logo, but pictures and video of the volunteer, created by the volunteer, as well as blog posts, brochures, policy and procedure. Almost everything the organization has was created by the volunteer and almost all of it was created exclusively by the volunteer. Please ask questions if you have them; I have all the answers you need, regarding this post.

I suppose the next question is, can the volunteer be counter-sued by the organization for damages or lawyer fees, should the volunteer lose?

 

[quincy]

What rights would those be in practical, everyday application? The only license that was given was, 'You can use these as long as I'm here.' which was overheard by someone else involved in the conversation.



No, the logo was never registered.

Remember, we're not just talking about a logo, but pictures and video of the volunteer, created by the volunteer, as well as blog posts, brochures, policy and procedure. Almost everything the organization has was created by the volunteer and almost all of it was created exclusively by the volunteer. Please ask questions if you have them; I have all the answers you need, regarding this post.

I suppose the next question is, can the volunteer be counter-sued by the organization for damages or lawyer fees, should the volunteer lose?

The logo created by the volunteer is what I see the volunteer having the most trouble trying to recover all rights to. I think it will be a challenge to stop the organization from using the trademark.

The continued use by the organization of the rest of what was created by the volunteer (brochures, videos, etc) can depend on the oral agreement, which no doubt will be remembered differently by the organization and the volunteer, and many other factors (e.g., whose blog). Policy and procedures are not copyright protectable (although how these are expressed in writing potentially could be).

Yes. The organization could countersue. Nothing prevents that.

As a note: There can be no infringement lawsuit filed by the volunteer against the organization unless or until the copyrights are federally registered - but I don't see any infringement suit possible because the use of the works by the organization was not unauthorized.

The volunteer needs to see an IP attorney in his area if he wants advice tailored to the specifics.

 

[OpenLaw]

Copy right law is Federal. Federal courts has original jurisdiction over that question. Federal courts have allowed quasi contract which is a legal theory , to be argued in the District Court and reaffirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. A gift has specific elements and conditions whereas the person understandably must transfers the idea from donor to the donee.

 

[quincy]

Copy right law is Federal. Federal courts has original jurisdiction over that question. Federal courts have allowed quasi contract which is a legal theory , to be argued in the District Court and reaffirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. A gift has specific elements and conditions whereas the person understandably must transfers the idea from donor to the donee.

So ... tossing out a few things you picked up online are you, OpenLaw?