Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"18. Assignment of copyright - (1) The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof.
Provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.

65. From a bare reading of the section, it is discernible that the Act recognizes two kinds of assignment, one being assignment of existing work and the other being assignment of future work. This is one instance of recognition of such agreements in the statute. Now, we can take this discussion further to understand the repercussions of both kinds of agreements.

66. Assignment of copyright in existing work can pass right, title and interests in the copyrighted work either absolutely or partially. The said assignment is subject to covenants entered into by the parties which are determinative factors as regards the absolute or partial interest in the work. Assignment is also subject to Section 19 of the Act.

67. The other agreement is the agreement to enter into assignment or agreement to assign future work. The law as it emanates from various judicial authorities and English law on the subject recognizes marked differences between the two kinds of agreements.

68. The basic difference in both kinds of assignment is that in the actual assignment, the interest, whether absolute or partial, passes along with the beneficial interest. On the other hand, the agreement to assign or other vernacular for the same being „assignment in equity‟ exists independent from the actual assignment. The said agreement is termed as „equitable assignment‟ due to the reason that the said assignment is such which passes rights and interests in equity to the assignee with the assignor/author retaining beneficial rights. This generally happens in commissioned works where the parties enter into agreement to assign future works. The same is the situation in the present case.

71. From the above, it is clear that equitable assignment exists in cases involving the agreement to assign future work and equitable assignment generally flows from contractual relations where work is commissioned. Applying the said principles to the present case, it can be said that a bare reading of clause 7 of the agreement demarcates the two interests, the beneficial interest and the equitable interest.

72. The usage of the expression "beneficial owner" in context of the plaintiff makes the intention of the parties to enter into agreement clear and unequivocal, demarcating the two interests. The intention further is clarified once the agreement provides for future obligations of the parties. It is a matter of fact that MSA was entered into in June, 2004 and future software was developed between June-August, 2004 and subsequently, at the time of agreement, the software was yet to be created. The intention is again reflected when the right to enforce is accorded to the defendant. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff was paid for the creation of the work. Rather, the plaintiff himself in his email acknowledged that the plaintiff has been paid with respect to the creation of the work. Under these circumstances, one can say with the certainty that the present agreement or MSA is an agreement wherein intention of the parties, whether express or implied, is such so as to create inference of equitable title in favour of defendant no.