Recently in licenses Category

March 5, 2010

Needs License for Watching the Detectives

Dear Rich: I want to use the melody (we will do the lyrics) of the 1977 Elvis Costello song Watching the Detectives in a promotional video. It is for a medical device company. Term is 9 months (this year). Do I need a sync license? Who is this sent to? (Costello is within the Universal Music Publishing Group). Wow, the Dear Rich Staff loves that song. Using it to promote medical devices is really thinking outside the box -- like way outside.  
Right, you had a question ... Yes, you need a sync license and you would need permission to modify the lyrics. You should speak with the publisher -- yes, it's Universal Music Publishing. Contact them at  2440 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 235-4700. If you run into a problem -- the typical one being that nobody takes your calls -- you may need to hire a clearance expert. You can read more about that stuff in our book. If you create your own version of the song and don't imitate the singing style of Elvis Costello -- imitating artists in ads leads to problems -- you will only need the permission of the publisher (or administrator).
March 1, 2010

Optioning Theatrical Rights From Heirs

theater.jpgDear Rich: I'm optioning theatrical rights from an author's heirs. I'm using a boilerplate option contract to option the rights. Before I enter into the contract, should the heirs have to provide right of title from the Copyright Office and proof of ownership? We don't know what language is included in your option agreement -- the Dear Rich Staff finds 'boilerplate' to be a deceptive term (with even more deceptive origins). However, you're on the right track by wanting some form of assurance or verification.
Good title; bad title. How do you verify that someone owns copyright? You can start by searching Copyright Office records, or you can hire a search company to research the copyright history. Search results, alas, are not always conclusive. The heirs may not yet have registered ownership in their name, may not have filed documentation evidencing the transfer, or they may have filed documents that have not yet been recorded. There is also the possibility that the records reflect that the heirs own copyright ... but don't reflect the fact that they have since transferred rights.  Finally, the heirs may have provided incorrect information to the Copyright Office. A registration doesn't verify that the person owns the copyright; it creates a presumption that the person owns it. 
Assurances. So, a wise approach may be to research on your own and to also seek assurances in your option agreement. You can include warranties -- guarantees as to representations of fact -- and indemnities -- promises to pay for all damages and costs if a third-party sues over the ownership issue. At the absolute minimum your option agreement must include a warranty from the heirs that they have the power and authority to enter into the option agreement. You can also ask that the heirs provide you with documentation from the Copyright Office evidencing ownership  (that may require them to file documents) and you may also seek other proof of the transfer -- a copy of the will, an opinion letter from the attorney, or documentation from the probate court. 
Wild card department. Though it's probably not an issue, it may matter whether the work falls under the 1909 Act or the 1976 Act (effective January 1, 1978). This could affect the rights of the heirs to terminate previously existing transfers of ownership. It's confusing stuff and a lawyer's assistance may be required.
February 26, 2010

We Can Use Clip Art, Right?

Thumbnail image for Cat.pngDear Rich: Our company offers a website directory service for advertisers. The advertisers can supply a photo but some of them now want to supply artwork. As long as the image came from clip-art, or some other publicly "royalty-free" stock photo site, it can be used without permission, correct? We wish that were true. 
Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify. 
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free. 
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection. 
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like. 
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art. 

February 25, 2010

Show me the Money: Finding an Agent for an Invention

iStock_000007960413XSmall.jpgDear RIch: I am an independent inventor and I am seeking an Intellectual property agent to represent me and my invention to the market. I currently have about 9 months left before I know whether the United States Patent office will grant me my patent but I feel I should not wait till the last minute to research this. My question is this, where do I find an intellectual property agent with the experience and knowledge in the field I need? My patent is for a new type of intake and exhaust valve system for the internal combustion engine.  Obtaining an agent can be as difficult as locating a licensee. Most agents are not looking for clients. They rely on word of mouth from friends or other inventors. The agents we spoke with when researching our licensing book requested that their names not be included. Why? Because they already have sufficient client listings and attract business strictly from referrals. How do you find an agent? There are five common methods: referrals from businesses, referrals from inventors, trade shows, trade magazine advertisements, and the Internet. Certain licensing publications also list licensing agents and service organizations that appraise new inventions. For example, The Licensing Journal often includes lists of technology agents. (That's a pricey journal however, and you may want to check your local law library for copies.)
Don't confuse agents with invention marketing scams. Invention marketing scams can be distinguished from legitimate agents because generally agents: are hard to find because they rarely advertise; do not give a sales pitch to inventors; will tell an inventor if the invention has flaws or risk factors; and  provide a list of satisfied clients. In other words, a real agent is realistic about your invention and is usually willing to take a risk for a percentage of the profits. Some qualified agents may offer to evaluate your product. The evaluations performed by legitimate reps usually cost several hundred dollars and result in a critique that is particular to your invention and the appropriate industry. Although scam marketers may seek a percentage of profits, they actually make their money by exorbitant up-front fees that are unrelated to any service that they perform. As a general rule, a person or company that demands more than $1,000 in up-front fees and will not furnish you with a list of clients is probably a scam marketing venture. If in doubt about the legitimacy of a company, check Invent.net or the National inventor Fraud Center which includes a list of suspected companies, as well as helpful links--for example, to the Federal Trade Commission. 
February 24, 2010

Protecting Equestrian Graphics

InternationaVelvet2.jpgDear Rich: I am equestrian artist that will be adding a t-shirt line to my portfolio. My graphic designer has created my horseshoe graphic, which I own and I have created one line phrases for each shirt. I will also be using these graphics on other items such as bags, mugs etc. I have a few questions as this is all new territory for me. (1) I am currently working with a woman who can embroider, applique and silk screen them for me. How can I prevent her from selling my line herself on her own web site? (2) I will be in contact with a company that will make the shirts and then also bring them to trade shows in our industry. Having not talked to them yet, my guess is they pay you an amount for every shirt sold since they are doing most of the marketing. (3) I don't understand the licensing process much and what are the benefits and how do I even do it? How can I prevent others from duplicating my work...most importantly the phrases I come up with as these are unique. Since the Dear Rich Staff is trying to increase readership and since we have a relative who is a devoted equestrian, it wouldn't be a good idea  to discuss how much we don't like all that horse stuff (especially the weird little English hats with the brim) and how we can't stand "horse movies." (And being lawyers we don't understand why there are no mandatory helmet laws except in Florida and New York and even then, that's only for kids under 16 -- what's up with that? And what about a helmet for the horse while we're at it.). 
Anyway, aside from our problems with over-sized four-legged animals, you had a question (or questions).  Okay, here goes: (1) Generally, if you own the copyright (or trademark) on the merchandise, you control who can reproduce it. So, the woman who works for you wouldn't have any rights to reproduce the horse art. If you're still concerned, you can prevent the worker from competing against you by having her sign a written agreement that states she can't sell your designs.  If your designs are not protectable under either copyright or trademark law (see below), that agreement may be hard to enforce. (2) We're not sure that #2, above, is a question so we can't help you with the company or explain how they do business. You should ask them about their terms and then compare them with competitors. We assume you're aware of online merchandising sources like Zazzle and Cafe Press. (3) A license is a form of permission -- in which you allow somebody to exploit property you own in return for a payment, usually in the form of a royalty. It can be a great way to do business because the company doing the licensing (the "licensee") will often police and protect your work as well. You can read more about it in this handy Nolo form kit on the subject. 
Short phrase thing. You will have a hard time stopping others from using your short phrases (by themselves) since they're not protected under copyright law. We've talked about this a few times in the past and we're paranoid about boring our readers with more on the subject.  You can always protect those phrases when used in association with a graphic -- that is you can stop others from copying the combination. You may be able to register each phrase as a trademark for use with T-shirts and similar merchandise. However, that's a little bit of a financial investment as each phrase will require a separate registration for each class of goods. Tally ho!
February 23, 2010

Videotaping the Parish Priest

iStock_000003187611XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I am a freelance filmmaker in Chicago and I do volunteer freelance film making for churches. Once a year we have a parish mission at our church and our guest speaker is usually a priest from a different church. I'm the person in charge of audio/video taping the mission. The church has nothing to do with it at all except they are the beneficiaries of my work. The visiting priest that comes to our parish has already verbally agreed to allow me to tape and make CD/DVDs of the mission for our parish library. How do I obtain rights on the film footage to do what I want without scaring away other priests that may be involved? As chief videographer you probably acquire the copyright in the video. We say "probably" because we don't know if there is some hiring agreement, or whether there are video taping rules within the church (for example, if you are granted special permission to tape, there may be strings attached with that permission.) 
Assuming you do have copyright ... You should obtain consents from the subjects of your video. Unless you're dealing with producers, investors or distributors, you can probably get by with a videotaped consent. Tell your subject that you need their consent for the following uses (list all your anticipated uses such as distributing DVDs, posting on the web), and explain that you may not use the interview in its entirety-- that is, you may use edited segments. Make sure that there is a real consent  -- even something as simple as "Yes, that's okay with me," will work. Then save that video. As we mentioned, if you're dealing with money people or distributors, a written consent -- with its additional provisions and releases, for example, permission to use the priest's name and image in advertising -- may be preferred. 
Books that can help. You can find the forms you need in Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off (insert FTC disclaimer) and in Clearance and Copyright: Everything You Need to Know for Film and Television (a great primer on permissions for film makers).
Can't afford a lawyer? You may not need much money to get legal advice. Chicago is one of several cities with "lawyers for the arts" services. This may include pro bono advice or other low cost services. The Dear Rich Staff used to provide free legal advice at the CLA office in San Francisco but then we created this blog, instead! (Speaking of religion, the staff is currently digging this book)


February 11, 2010

What If They Won't Sign an NDA?

00000031.jpgDear Rich: I started a product design company and have a design that a company may be interested in licensing. To date I have not told them specifics about the design, only that it fits into their product line. We're meeting soon and I want to be sure to protect the idea for future patentability (by not making it public as defined by patent law) as well as prevent the company from disclosing the idea to others. I've read that having representatives from the company write a quick entry in my invention notebook to the effect that we're meeting to discuss the idea is legally sufficient to protect patentability and disclosure. I've also been told not to bother with an NDA as most companies will not sign them. You are correct to be concerned about public disclosures as they will set the clock ticking on the one-year bar for filing a patent (and will likely eliminate the chances for any foreign patent rights). 
Disclosing in Confidence. To prevent triggering the one-year bar (and to preserve foreign rights),  the company must agree your disclosure was made in confidence (and treat it accordingly). It's true that many companies will not sign NDAs, particularly with individuals that they do not know. However, that's usually not the case when the company knows the other party, or has solicited the idea. So, we  recommend starting with an NDA (samples are provided here).
Signing your book. Signing an entry in your invention notebook may preserve confidentiality provided it includes a statement to the effect that the disclosure is being made in confidence and the company will take necessary steps to preserve the confidentiality of the disclosure. Still, it's not as ideal as an NDA which may contain provisions for dispute resolution, attorney fees, jurisdiction, or injunctive relief. 
Authority to bind. Finally, make sure the person signing the NDA or book has the authority to bind the company (include their title; be wary of "agents") and if in doubt, verify the authority. 
If they won't sign anything. Be wary of companies that won't sign anything. Sometimes they have a legitimate reason -- they don't want to be limited in case they're developing something similar independently -- and sometimes they're just using their bargaining power to see what you have without any restrictions. Keep in mind that any "publication" that shows how to make and use the invention, or any offer for sale -- licenses are not typically considered an offer for sale -- will trigger the one-year bar. Disclose sparingly in the absence of a confidentiality agreement. 
The young man in this photo -- my cousin Andrew -- went on to run a design company that licensed toys to all of the major toy companies. He always used an NDA!

Find out more about protecting your invention with my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
Want to file for a patent now? Use Nolo's Online Provisional Patent Application.
December 30, 2009

Terrible Towel Satire? Uh ... not really.

103641-1.jpg
Dear Rich: We would like to spoof the Pittsburgh Steelers 'Terrible Towel' with a "We ARE Terrible Towel" for the Detroit Lions. It would be white with no logos. Satires can't infringe copyrights can they? Thoughts? If you're making one towel to hold up for the TV cameras, you're probably okay. But if you're thinking of making more than one, the Dear Rich Staff would advise against it. First of all -- it's not a copyright issue as copyright doesn't protect short phrases or individual words. 
It's a trademark issue. The term "Terrible Towel" was created by Pittsburgh sportscaster Myron Cope who acquired trademark rights and then assigned the registered trademark to a charity, the Allegheny Valley School, an institution for the disabled. Considering that licensing revenues from the towel have earned the school over $3 million, the school and the Steelers (who acknowledge that the towel is one of the most popular merchandise concepts in football history) both have a vested interest in preventing others from making and selling Terrible Towels. It could infringe and dilute a world-famous mark (and one that is carried to the far corners of the earth.)
Does satire matter? We must clarify one thing: you stated that satires can't infringe copyrights. That's not correct. A parody may be excused as a fair use under some circumstances. The same is not always true for satires. Here's a lawyerly explanation of the distinction. In any case, your use does not seem to qualify as either a satire or a parody, does it? Bottom line: sales and distribution of your towel will likely trigger a cease and desist letter.

December 29, 2009

Recording a Lindsey Buckingham Song

lindsey buckinghamDear Rich: I have friends in a band in Norway and they want to release a song written by Lindsay Buckingham. They plan on releasing 1000 CDs and 500 vinyl singles. Does the label ask for permission or should the band? We think your friends should look at their recording contract (if they have one) to determine who has responsibility for paying for the rights. In the U.S., the label typically pays (and then charges it to the band somehow).
Rights Organizations. In the U.S., the band would have a fairly easy time sorting this out. They could either pay the compulsory license fees and follow the instructions issued by the Copyright Office. Or they could take the easier route of charging the fees to their credit card at the HFA site -- you just set up an account and tell them how many copies. HFA instructions note, however, that the license is only for recordings distributed in the U.S. In Norway, rights are commonly sorted by Kopinor, and your friends might want to check their website for assistance. Other European rights organizations are shown here.
Small Correction Dept. You spelled Mr. B's name as Lindsay; the hypervigilant Dear Rich Staff reports that it's actually the more common male variant, Lindsey (placing #834 among male names -- compared to #1211 for Lindsay). 

To find out more about music copyright law, see my book Music Law: How to Run Your Band's Business.
November 9, 2009

Film Distributors, Indemnity and Struggling Artists

double-indemnity.jpgDear Rich: Struggling Artist makes an anti-establishment film, which is mostly original material. In one segment, with a satirical intent, he deliberately shows McDonalds' "golden arches" and uses a Hannah Montana song on the soundtrack. Struggling Artist knows the material is copyrighted and trademarked, but he believes that he has a fair use defense and that it's OK to use it. Distributor picks up Struggling Artist's film for DVD distribution. In the contract he signs with Distributor, Struggling Artist guarantees that he owns all the copyrights to the material he supplies. Distributor takes the masters Struggling Artist gives him and sends them to a third party to be duplicated onto DVD. A month later, McDonalds and Hannah Montana file lawsuits against Distributor for trademark and copyright infringement (as Struggling Artist has no money). Is Distributor liable for any judgment in favor of the plaintiffs? Does the contract clause where Struggling Artist assures Distributor he owned the rights to the material help him? The short answer is that the distributor will be liable for infringement and the contract clause will only help if the distributor can obtain some payment from the artist. By the way, we're not sure where you fit in - as distributor or artist - so as Joni Mitchell says, we'll look at this from both sides now. 
Indemnity. The Dear Rich Staff  believes that the clause you're referring to is either a warranty - in which the artist promises the film does not infringe -- or an indemnity clause - in which the artist agrees to pay for any damages resulting from any claim of infringement. Either way the distributor can likely go after the artist for reimbursement if someone sues. Some distributors don't just rely on these contractual promises; they ask to see the documentation verifying the licenses and permissions. 
Fair Use and Other Defenses. The concept of "fair use" is primarily for copyrighted works - the Hannah Montana song -- and not for trademarks (the golden arches). Trademark fair use applies to a different type of defense. As noted above, even if the distributor prevailed, the distributor would most likely have to pay its own attorney fees. So being right doesn't mean that the artist and distributor are free of financial liabilities. Also, you didn't mention if the anti-establishment film is a documentary or feature film. A documentary is likely to provide stronger defenses. (BTW, in today's completely co-opted world does the term "anti-establishment" have any meaning anymore?) 
Insurance and Other Odds and Ends. Does the distributor have insurance? If so, you can be sure that the insurer will proceed after the artist and obtain a judgment (and the distributor may do the same on its own). The artist may not have anything of value right now but a judgment will last for many years should the artist earn or inherit anything in the future.
Struggling Artist? We're not sure why the term "struggling artist" bugs us. But really, everyone's struggling to some extent -- even Lindsay Lohan -- and the artist in your question just got a distribution deal which means he or she is way ahead of the game, at least in the struggle-reduction department. Ennyway, just a thought ... and we'll try and get over ourselves.

For more information about copyright and trademark infringement, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 26, 2009

Barbie Gets Fangs: Movie Tie-In Toy Deals

twilight-barbie.jpg Dear Rich: I am searching for samples of licensing agreements between a movie producer and toy manufacturer governing copyrights and trademarks used in movie "tie-in" products. Do you have any leads? The Dear Rich Staff assumes you're talking about a traditional movie tie-in toy product. For example, Mattel wants to sell more Barbie dolls so it creates a tie-in with a certain vampire movie, ("Mommy, why is Barbie wearing a garlic?"). 
Looking for Merchandise Agreements. Without reflecting on the pros and cons of these pre-landfill toy products -- the agreements that facilitate such deals are merchandising agreements built around a license to use the movie's copyrights and trademarks. You can see examples of a trademark license and a merchandise license (with explanations) in our book, Getting Permission
The Real Deal. If you'd like to see more detailed toy merchandise licenses, you might want to consider springing for License Agreements: Forms and Checklists, by Battersby & Grimes, the acknowledged leaders in toy licensing law. If that's too pricey, consider Contracts for the Film & Television Industry by Mark Litwak which provides sample agreements (and we'd also like to plug Clearance & Copyright by Michael C. Donaldson because it provides a good overview on the use of copyrights and trademarks in film). Check the TOCs for all these books online to make sure they include the right stuff. Also both of these books discuss product placements - sometimes part of the arrangement - in which the toy appears in the film
[FTC Disclosure: We make money from the sale of our Getting Permission book (Duh!) but not from the sale of any other books mentioned.]
September 16, 2009

Rights to Use Taliban Video Screenshot

afghan.jpgDear Rich: I make photo t-shirts and other photo gifts and take orders online at my website.  I have designed a t-shirt with a photo of a soldier being held captive by the Taliban with the text "Free Bowe Bergdahl" over the photo. I pulled three different photos from the net, one from the Taliban video, a photo of Bowe Bergdahl before entering the military, and the third of him in uniform. I plan to donate most of the proceeds to the American Red Cross from the sale of these shirts, but am I at risk of being sued if I use the photos? It's difficult for us to assess your claims because the grim reality of the underlying situation seems to make questions of copyright law seem trivial. As well-meaning as you may be with your t-shirt, it's difficult to understand how it would not be perceived as exploiting the situation, rather than helping it. In any case, if you're concerned about the copyright analysis, here it is.
Yes, you could be sued if the copyright owners of the two pre-capture photos find out about your use and challenge you in court (probably an unlikely scenario). You're free to do what you want with the Taliban-created image (since for obvious reasons, nobody will claim copyright to that imagery). The fact that you're donating some of the money to the American Red Cross doesn't affect the legal claims (only the amount of damages). And if you are sued, we think you would have a hard time arguing fair use since you are not using the photos in a transformative manner -- you're simply reproducing them in order to sell t-shirts. 

September 15, 2009

Release for Photo of Rock Club Interior

backstage.jpgDear Rich: Someone has offered to license one of my images of the interior of a famous rock club for an album cover. But I don't have a property release for the image. Is an album cover a commercial use that would require a release or am I safe? What if I included licensing terms that says that all liability for lack of releases must be born by the buyer -- will I be safe? Your album-cover use probably won't require a property release unless: (1) the name or other trademarks of the club are visible (for example, the words "The Fillmore," appear above the door) (2) the photo invades the privacy of people portrayed in the picture (e.g, one patron is canoodling another, or it's obvious you need someone's okay), (3) there are copyrighted images within your club interior that are clearly visible or (4) the club has a posted policy (or it's printed on your ticket) regarding the use of cameras within the building. (As for the latter, it's not clear to us whether a venue could halt the use of images taken in violation of a "no cameras" environment. More information on the policy would be needed.)
Liability Shifting. The Dear Rich Staff -- which has seen its share of rock club interiors -- is always in favor of liability shifting devices and it would be great if you can include a provision that the record label or publisher bears the burden for defending any lawsuits that arise from your photo. The trouble is that a savvy buyer will quickly strike such a provision (wouldn't you?) and insist that the photographer guarantee the rights to use the image.

To learn more about licensing, check out my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
July 17, 2009

T-Shirt License of Artwork

iStock_000005493447XSmall.jpg
Dear Rich: I am an artist and was recently approached by a woman who wants to use one of my images on t-shirts. She has proposed a simple arrangement doing 24 shirts at a time. As she sells out of one batch, she will make another 24. This is not a million dollar transaction but I have no idea how to respond to it. How do I know what the going rate is? The short answer is that artists get anywhere between 5 to 20% (or more) of the revenue generated by the shirt. It depends on the demand, the size of the print run and your bargaining power. Sometimes the royalty is paid only after costs are deducted; sometimes it is straight off the top. Some online T-shirt merchants even let the artist set the royalty.  
Beyond the Royalty
You should also ask yourself a few questions. Is the amount of money coming in worth your time and energy? What if you're not satisfied with the quality of the reproduction? Will the arrangement preclude you from other more lucrative deals? Do you have any reason to believe the t-shirt maker is not a trustworthy business person? If you have any doubts, it's probably a good idea to make the initial term of the agreement short, perhaps six months to a year (you can always renew). And it's best to keep it nonexclusive as well (you can always amend it later). And as they say in the music business, don't do a handshake deal, get some paper. Below is a sample short form t-shirt license taken from Getting Permission (written by the Dear Rich staff). Explanations for the agreement and a much more detailed long- form merchandise agreement can be found in the book, as well. And of course, make sure your artwork doesn't cross over into personality rights,trademarks, or otherwise illegal content.  (click to download:  T-Shirt License Agreement (Short Form))
June 23, 2009

Can a NonProfit Be an Invention Licensor?

iStock_000007651555XSmall.jpgDear Rich, I have a question. I have invented a very useful tool and have a patent pending. Also I have an arrangement with a nonprofit and some principals. The nonprofit will operate the business of selling the tool to generate revenue. The principals provide funding and agree to use their retail outlets for the sales. Can we license a manufacturer to manufacture only and license the nonprofit to sell the product? The short answer to your question is that we're not sure. Yes, I know that the Dear Rich Staff is packed with lawyers, but more information is needed. For example, we're concerned about maintaining your nonprofit tax benefits, and the value of your patent pending status, and we're not sure what you mean when you say you want to "license a manufacturer to manufacture only"? Do you mean versus manufacturing and selling? We're also not sure who controls the rights to the invention, you or the principals? In a situation like this -- when you're mixing investors, inventions, and 501(c) tax issues -- you're best off bringing an attorney to the table
Our three favorite movies featuring patent attorneys