Legal Question in Intellectual Property in California

Earlier today, I answered basically the same question from you, even though expressed in different terms.

You are taking an oversimplistic view of the law in assuming, apparently, that every right and every principle of enforcement in copyright law is going to be set forth in black and white in the codified version of the law. The reality is that the copyright laws, as well as a lot of other sensibly-drafted federal law, is sparse and terse in expression in the codes, but, on the other hand, that frequently-invoked law on not-unusual topics will have volumes of case law, scholarly analysis, law-review discussion, etc., all of which should be reviewed and weighed in forming an opinion on a particular lawsuit.

As far as I know, there is no "section of the copyright law that gives each co-owner the right to grant such authorization without the permission of the other co-owner" in express terms, that an amateur lawyer could engraft onto an argument in a lawsuit without some supporting argument based on non-statutory general principles of law.

As I tried to point out in my prior answer, there is some important and valuable discussion of your issue in a Congressional publication discussing how the new (1976) Copyright Act would affect copyright co-owners. Basically, under the 1976 Act, co-owners of a copyright are considered to be tenant in common of the bundle of rights given by a registered copyright, and as such, under long-existing and largely unwritten (judge-made common law) principles regarding co-owners of intangible property, either co-owner could execute a valid license without the permission or knowledge of the other, and vice-versa.

So, what it boils down to, I think, is that you are in way over your head as a self-represented litigant in an area that is the usual province of very expensive, very sharp, very well-educated legal specialists. You have some law in your favor, it seems, but you are looking for a very easy way to argue the law to your judge - by citing statute. It ain't gonna work.

To prevail, which perhaps you should, because (I think) you're right, you are going to have to argue from more fundamental legal principles, not to be found in statutes. That's why we go to law school for 3+ years -- not to memorize statutes, but to understand how the law is derived, ascertained and argued.

In sum, you have a strong case but establishing your defense must go beyond citing statute.

The other attorney is right on point here. You are way in over your head and need to consult a copyright attorney ASAP. Consult with a copyright litigation attorney in your area for specifics.

Kevin B. Murphy, B.S., M.B.A., J.D. - Mr. Franchise

Franchise Attorney