01-1744, 01-2119 Liu v. Price Waterhouse LLP

Listen to this article

“[O]btaining copyright protection in the derivative work was beyond the scope of the permissible uses authorized by the June 7, 1995 letter agreement. See 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT sec. 3.06, at 3-34.26 at 26(1) (2002) (‘[T]he right to claim copyright in a noninfringing derivative work arises by operation of law, not through authority from the copyright owner of the underlying work. Nonetheless, if the pertinent agreement between the parties affirmatively bars the licensee from obtaining copyright protection even in a licensed derivative work, that contractual provision would appear to govern.’) (emphasis added); see also Gracen v. Bradford Exch., 698 F.2d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 1983) (stating that ‘[e]ven if [Gracen] was authorized to exhibit her derivative works, she may not have been authorized to copyright them’).

“Contrary to Yang and Liu’s argument on appeal, because the Sky Company programmers never had any ownership interest in the copyrights in the derivative China RevUp32 program, 17 U.S.C. sec. 204(a) is inapplicable.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Kanne, J.