¿Hizo Osho alguna vez transferencia a terceros sus derechos de autor?
Asignación
No, no lo hizo. Dos documentos que han salido a la luz que pueden (o no) han sido firmados por Osho. Estas son las licencias para la publicación de algunos de sus libros.
(Vea "¿Cuáles son los documentos de la OIF se basa en reclamar la propiedad de derechos de autor?" Por los documentos y un completo examen de sus efectos jurídicos.]
Derechos de autor son derechos que deben ser transferidos claramente y por escrito. No pueden ser transferidos a través de inferencia o declaraciones orales. Tiene que ser un documento válido por escrito claramente que todas las transferencias de interés en los derechos de autor. Si ese documento nunca existió, que no es probable, no tenemos ese documento ahora. La cuestión de los derechos de autor de la propiedad de parte de los EE.UU. de marcas, pero ninguno de los documentos producidos en el descubrimiento o en caso de que las pruebas en más de nueve años de litigio son las cesiones de derechos de autor.
En otras palabras, la OIF parece no tener esos documentos para producir. (Desde la Junta de Marcas no tiene competencia directa sobre los derechos de autor, no podía decidir si la OIF, Zurich propiedad de derechos de autor, sólo la forma en que la reivindicación de los propios afectados la marca reclamación.) Un reclamante de los derechos de autor de los derechos de autor Osho tiene que tener lo que se denomina una cadena completa de la titularidad de Osho vincular a ella. Para Osho la propia realidad los derechos de autor OIF tendría que probar que la propiedad de derechos de autor Osho asignado a la RF, RF asignado a RFI, RFI y lo asignó a la OIF, Zurich. Si cualquiera de los enlaces de esta cadena es que faltan, la OIF no recibe nada. El eslabón más débil en esta cadena es el primer documento de 1978 (Documento 1), que no sólo no puede ser autenticado, pero es en su cara una licencia, no una cesión de derechos de autor. Documento 2 es esencialmente el mismo que el Documento 1 y podría, como máximo, de transferencia de derechos de publicación de obras o no identificados en las ocho obras de Documento 1. (Ver ¿Cuáles son los documentos de la OIF se basa en reclamar la propiedad de derechos de autor?) Esto significa que no posee la OIF Osho por cesión de derechos de autor, como lo ha reclamado. Trabajo-para-alquiler. Hay otra teoría de que la OIF, Zurich ha intentado utilizar para justificar la propiedad de derechos de autor. OIF presentó derechos de autor de libros y grabaciones de discursos de Osho dado por los EE.UU. con la Biblioteca del Congreso de varios títulos de Osho del trabajo alegando que la OIF propiedad a través de derechos de autor de una obra por contrato de arrendamiento de Osho. (Es importante recordar que el registro no es una prueba de la propiedad y no significa nada si no la OIF en realidad el propio autor.) En general un derecho de autor otorga a un trabajo creativo en cuanto el trabajo se convierte en "fijos", por ejemplo, poner por escrito, grabado, la música puesta en anotaciones, fotografía, obra de arte o de hecho. La persona que crea el trabajo se presume el propietario del trabajo que crea. Si alguien crea algo en nombre de otra persona y se paga por el trabajo, el derecho de autor podría pertenecer a la persona que financió los proyectos. En los EE.UU. esto es cierto si, y sólo si, el creador del proyecto, firma un trabajo por contrato de arrendamiento antes de que se termine el proyecto que se especifica que los derechos en el trabajo pertenecerá al financiador. Osho nunca fue al servicio de ninguna fundación, nunca se le pagó para dar discursos, y nunca firmó un trabajo por contrato de arrendamiento con nadie. Los dos acuerdos de licencia de Osho supuestamente había firmado especifica que Osho tiene que elegir si desea o no que cualquier discurso incluido en la publicación de acuerdo de licencia (documentos 1 y 2) En otras palabras, se mantenía el control sobre su trabajo y sólo de acuerdo en que Él podría conceder derechos limitados (la publicación de una licencia) después de que la obra fue creada (discurso registrado) y un derecho de autor ha sido (adjunto) que pertenecía a él. Ni la teoría puede tener éxito.
La única razón por la RFI / OIF, Zurich se han registrado los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. para reclamar un trabajo para contratar a base de la propiedad es porque se dieron cuenta de que los documentos supuestamente firmados por Osho no eran las cesiones de derechos de autor, pero los acuerdos de licencia. Ellos pueden tener la esperanza de que tendrían más suerte que pasa fuera de los acuerdos de trabajo para que los acuerdos de alquiler como las cesiones de derechos de autor. En los EE.UU. las marcas OIF caso optó por hacer la cesión de la titularidad en lugar argumento. En verdad, ninguna de estas teorías pueden tener éxito en última instancia. Los acuerdos de licencia supuestamente firmado por Osho claramente no transfiere ningún tipo de derechos de propiedad en los derechos de autor de Osho. La transferencia de los derechos de propiedad que han sido tan necesarias para el derecho a contratar a un acuerdo, ya que sería para un acuerdo de cesión de los derechos de autor, y no hay ningún documento en el que se transfiere la propiedad de derechos de Osho. Osho de Entendimiento.
Aunque no existe ningún original del documento supuestamente firmado por Osho en 1978 (Documento 1), es posible que Osho muy limitada firmado el presente acuerdo de RF con la India. El idioma de ese acuerdo hace que sea absolutamente claro que la intención de Osho se reserva el derecho a controlar su propio trabajo en ese momento. Puso todo tipo de condiciones en la licencia concedida y que se reservaba el derecho de retener la labor futura de la licencia y la revocación de la licencia y darle a alguien más. El hecho de que no original, se sabe y se puede indicar que existen. Osho decidió poner fin a esa licencia, y pidieron que los originales se destruyeran. Ese no es el tipo de documento que se ha perdido otra cosa. Una cosa más es clara, y es que no existe documento que Osho haya transferido la propiedad de los derechos de autor a nadie. Esto significa que Osho mantuvo Sus derechos de propiedad durante toda su vida y la OIF no tiene ninguna reclamación válida a los derechos de autor propiedad hoy.
Did Osho ever transfer His copyrights to others?
Assignment
No, He didn’t. Two documents have come to light that may (or may not) have been signed by Osho. These are publishing licenses for some of His books. (See 'What are the documents OIF is relying on to claim copyright ownership?' for the documents and a complete discussion of their legal effects.]
Copyrights are legal rights that must be transferred clearly in writing. They can’t be transferred through inference or oral statements. There has to be a valid written document that clearly transfers all legal interest in the copyrights. If such a document ever existed, which isn’t likely, we don’t have that document now.
The question of copyright ownership was part of the US trademark case, but none of the documents produced in discovery or in evidence in that case over nine years of litigation are assignments of copyright ownership. In other words, OIF appears to have no such documents to produce. (Since the Trademark Board did not have direct jurisdiction over copyrights, it could not decide whether OIF, Zurich owned copyrights, only how the claim to own them impacted the trademark claim.)
A copyright claimant for Osho’s copyrights has to have what is called a complete chain of title linking Osho to it. To really own Osho’s copyrights OIF would have to prove that Osho assigned copyright ownership to RF, RF assigned it to RFI, and RFI assigned it to OIF, Zurich. If any link in this chain is missing, OIF gets nothing. The weakest link in this chain is the first document of 1978 (Document 1), which not only can’t be authenticated, but is on its face a license, not a copyright assignment. Document 2 is essentially the same as Document 1 and could, at most, transfer publishing rights in unidentified works or the eight works for Document 1. (See What are the documents OIF is relying on to claim copyright ownership?)
This means that OIF does not own Osho’s copyrights by assignment, as it has claimed.
Work-for-hire
There is one other theory that OIF, Zurich has tried to use to justify copyright ownership. OIF filed copyrights for books and recordings of discourses given by Osho with the US Library of Congress for several titles of Osho’s work claiming that OIF owned copyrights through a work-for-hire agreement with Osho. (It’s important to remember that a registration is not proof of ownership and means nothing if OIF didn’t actually own the copyrights.)
Generally a copyright attaches to a creative work as soon as the work becomes “fixed,” for example, put in writing, recorded, music put into notations, photograph taken, or artwork made. The person creating the work is presumed to own the work he or she creates. If someone creates something on behalf of someone else and is paid for the work, the copyright might belong to the person financing the project. In the US this is true if, and only if, the creator of the project signs a work-for-hire agreement before the project is completed specifying that the rights in the work will belong to the financer.
Osho was never employed by any foundation, never was paid for giving discourses, and never signed a work-for-hire agreement with anyone. The two license agreements Osho was alleged to have signed both specified that Osho got to choose whether or not He included any discourse in the publishing license agreement (Documents 1 & 2) In other words, He kept control over His work and only agreed that He might grant limited rights (a publishing license) after the work was created (discourse recorded) and a copyright had been (attached) that belonged to Him.
Neither Theory Can Succeed
The only reason the RFI/OIF, Zurich would have registered copyrights in the US claiming a work for hire basis for ownership is because they realized that the documents allegedly signed by Osho were not assignments of copyright ownership, but license agreements. They may have hoped that they would have more luck passing off the agreements as work-for-hire agreements than as assignments of copyrights. In the US trademark case OIF opted to make the assignment of ownership argument instead.
In truth, neither of these theories can ultimately succeed. The license agreements allegedly signed by Osho clearly do not transfer any ownership rights in Osho’s copyrights. A transfer of ownership rights would have been just as necessary for a right-to-hire agreement as it would be for an assignment of copyright agreement, and there is no document that transfers ownership rights from Osho.
Osho’s Understanding
Though there is no existing original of the document allegedly signed by Osho in 1978 (Document 1), it is possible that Osho signed this very limited agreement with RF India. The language of that agreement makes it absolutely clear that Osho intended to reserve the rights to control His own work at that point in time. He set all kinds of conditions on the license He granted and reserved the right to withhold future work from the license and to revoke the license and give it to someone else. The fact that no original is known to exist may indicate that Osho decided to end that license and asked that the original be destroyed. That isn’t the kind of document that would have been lost otherwise.
One more thing is clear, and that is that no document exists that transferred Osho’s copyright ownership to anyone else. This means that Osho owned His rights during His entire life and OIF has no valid claim to copyright ownership today.
Assignment
No, He didn’t. Two documents have come to light that may (or may not) have been signed by Osho. These are publishing licenses for some of His books. (See 'What are the documents OIF is relying on to claim copyright ownership?' for the documents and a complete discussion of their legal effects.]
Copyrights are legal rights that must be transferred clearly in writing. They can’t be transferred through inference or oral statements. There has to be a valid written document that clearly transfers all legal interest in the copyrights. If such a document ever existed, which isn’t likely, we don’t have that document now.
The question of copyright ownership was part of the US trademark case, but none of the documents produced in discovery or in evidence in that case over nine years of litigation are assignments of copyright ownership. In other words, OIF appears to have no such documents to produce. (Since the Trademark Board did not have direct jurisdiction over copyrights, it could not decide whether OIF, Zurich owned copyrights, only how the claim to own them impacted the trademark claim.)
A copyright claimant for Osho’s copyrights has to have what is called a complete chain of title linking Osho to it. To really own Osho’s copyrights OIF would have to prove that Osho assigned copyright ownership to RF, RF assigned it to RFI, and RFI assigned it to OIF, Zurich. If any link in this chain is missing, OIF gets nothing. The weakest link in this chain is the first document of 1978 (Document 1), which not only can’t be authenticated, but is on its face a license, not a copyright assignment. Document 2 is essentially the same as Document 1 and could, at most, transfer publishing rights in unidentified works or the eight works for Document 1. (See What are the documents OIF is relying on to claim copyright ownership?)
This means that OIF does not own Osho’s copyrights by assignment, as it has claimed.
Work-for-hire
There is one other theory that OIF, Zurich has tried to use to justify copyright ownership. OIF filed copyrights for books and recordings of discourses given by Osho with the US Library of Congress for several titles of Osho’s work claiming that OIF owned copyrights through a work-for-hire agreement with Osho. (It’s important to remember that a registration is not proof of ownership and means nothing if OIF didn’t actually own the copyrights.)
Generally a copyright attaches to a creative work as soon as the work becomes “fixed,” for example, put in writing, recorded, music put into notations, photograph taken, or artwork made. The person creating the work is presumed to own the work he or she creates. If someone creates something on behalf of someone else and is paid for the work, the copyright might belong to the person financing the project. In the US this is true if, and only if, the creator of the project signs a work-for-hire agreement before the project is completed specifying that the rights in the work will belong to the financer.
Osho was never employed by any foundation, never was paid for giving discourses, and never signed a work-for-hire agreement with anyone. The two license agreements Osho was alleged to have signed both specified that Osho got to choose whether or not He included any discourse in the publishing license agreement (Documents 1 & 2) In other words, He kept control over His work and only agreed that He might grant limited rights (a publishing license) after the work was created (discourse recorded) and a copyright had been (attached) that belonged to Him.
Neither Theory Can Succeed
The only reason the RFI/OIF, Zurich would have registered copyrights in the US claiming a work for hire basis for ownership is because they realized that the documents allegedly signed by Osho were not assignments of copyright ownership, but license agreements. They may have hoped that they would have more luck passing off the agreements as work-for-hire agreements than as assignments of copyrights. In the US trademark case OIF opted to make the assignment of ownership argument instead.
In truth, neither of these theories can ultimately succeed. The license agreements allegedly signed by Osho clearly do not transfer any ownership rights in Osho’s copyrights. A transfer of ownership rights would have been just as necessary for a right-to-hire agreement as it would be for an assignment of copyright agreement, and there is no document that transfers ownership rights from Osho.
Osho’s Understanding
Though there is no existing original of the document allegedly signed by Osho in 1978 (Document 1), it is possible that Osho signed this very limited agreement with RF India. The language of that agreement makes it absolutely clear that Osho intended to reserve the rights to control His own work at that point in time. He set all kinds of conditions on the license He granted and reserved the right to withhold future work from the license and to revoke the license and give it to someone else. The fact that no original is known to exist may indicate that Osho decided to end that license and asked that the original be destroyed. That isn’t the kind of document that would have been lost otherwise.
One more thing is clear, and that is that no document exists that transferred Osho’s copyright ownership to anyone else. This means that Osho owned His rights during His entire life and OIF has no valid claim to copyright ownership today.
(Traducción libre de Ma Gyan Darshana)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario