Forum Moderators: not2easy
I am looking into a business venture for a 'private label rights' membership site and have a few questions, primarily how PLR relates to copyright law.
If someone is a ghostwriter for a PLR membership site, does that mean that they give full copyright license to their works to the site owner? Or do the site's members have copyright? Or does a copyright to those works simply never exist in the first place?
I would assume there is no is no legal copyright involved in any part of the process, especially for the site's members, as it would be hard (ie impossible) for 500 people to claim copyright to the same work, even with the content slightly altered.
If that's so, then when each of those members use that material on their own site (even if they alter it somewhat), does that mean that they cannot use a copyright symbol anywhere on that page? I would guess that each member could not claim copyright to the work unless it was completely undistinguishable from the original.
Sorry for all the questions but I want to make sure that what I'm getting into is 100% legal.
Thanks in advance for all replies!
When you create something, a copyright on that item is established. While it's recommended, you don't have to officially register to have a copyright on created items.
Who owns the copyright resides first with the creator. Anyone else who, legally, uses it is simply the same a licensor. The terms and ownership can be changed with a contract.
For example, you might hire me to write an article about gambling. Perhaps we create a contract that specifically states that I am relinquishing my legal copyright and transferring it to you upon successful completion of said item(s).
Here's another example. Client comes to me and wants an article for a magazine written. I retain ownership of said item(s), but give client permission to use the article as they wish. The client might take the article and use on a website afterwards or whatever.
In your PLR example, there would be one copyright holder (the creator) and those using the article would simply have a right (as per terms) to use the article.
You don't have to register an item with the US Copyright Office to use the copyright symbol. It's simply a notice that something is under copyright.
If your members alter the article, they are creating a derivative work, which without your approval would violate, possibly, your copyright.
The world of IP law is very technical. I would advise you to seek out a lawyer that specialized in intellectual property (copyright, trademark, patent).
I just spent the last 15-20 minutes reading about private label rights, which is a new topic to me. Most of what I found was hype and selling, but I did find one example of what seemed to be a fairly reasonable licensing agreement. Whoever wrote it realized that, at least in the U.S., you can't actually transfer copyright without the (physical, on paper) signature of the copyright holder. Under most circumstances, the author/creator of the work would hold copyright as soon as the work is created; one exception is when a contract is (physically, on paper) signed saying it's a "work for hire," which is what a lot of traditional ghostwriting is. That kind of contract signs away the actual copyright.
The PLR license I read avoids transferring the copyright by not giving the buyer (member? subscriber?) complete legal control over how the work is used, which would be the normal definition of a copyright. It lists ways the work cannot be used (illegal use, etc.). Most interestingly, it stipulates that the buyer cannot pass on any of the private label rights to anyone else. In that way, the copyright holder is controlling who gets a license to alter/publish/sell the work, and is not passing on that control to the person who buys (?) the license. So, no, the licensee would not be able to claim actual copyright of the article; neither would the site.
Very interesting. Whoever came up with this had a creative view of copyright law.
In your situation, with a site as a "middle-man," I really don't know how this would work (my brief search didn't turn up any examples of that). But the way I understood it from what I did find, in order for PLR to be legal, the license would have to stipulate that the original copyright holder retains copyright by controlling how and to whom the license is distributed. If all the site does is provide a place for copyright holders and license purchasers to meet, this would work (assuming a good, legally-vetted license). If, OTOH, the copyright holder passes the created work to the site, and the site then sells the licenses, I don't see how this could be legal within copyright law. But, as I said, this is a new concept to me and I could very easily be missing something.
Hmmm...
[edited by: Beagle at 5:26 pm (utc) on July 19, 2006]
