The legalities of 'private label rights' content

Hello all..

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!

 

If someone gives people permission to re-use their work, I do not think that the entitlement to copyright is passed along with their usage rights. I am not an IP attorney, but I believe that to be how it works. So the even if the forum had the rights to use and do what they wanted with the product, they would not hold the copyright for it.

 

is it any specific forum about plr?

 

What does your contract say?

Remember, copyright is a BUNDLE of rights. It's not just one thing. If you have no contract, but are writing with the knowledge that your work will be used and rewritten by many, then all those purchasers have a LICENSE to use.

You still own the work and can use as you see fit. The PLR can't pass copyright OWNERSHIP to the purchasers because they don't own all the rights to begin with and their license with you, again without a contract, doesn't give them permission to do so. You can't grant rights/permissions that you don't own in the first place.

Those owners can put a copyright symbol on their page, because there may be something under copyright there. However, they don't own the copyright to their purchased article. Even though they may have rewritten it, it's a derivative work from the original, which is only licensed to them.

Anyway, contact an intellectual property lawyer if you want to be 100% sure.

 

I read the US Copyright Act a few years ago.
Simply saying, in case that a contract doesn't present, who ever pays for the work gets the ownership of the copyright. If it's being given out for free, you don't give out the copyright, but the right to use it.
However, having a contract can be anything. It all depends on the terms of the contract.

 

Please go back and read it again. Also read cases while you are at it. What you said is incorrect.

 

I just provide some general information.

 

Yes, but it's wrong.

 

As marketjunction pointed out, that is not really accurate. This is what the US Copyright office says about "Work for Hire":
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

So, you really have to read the whole thing to get a clearer understanding. If an independent contractor has created the work there has to be a written contract specifying that it was made as "work for hire" for him to give up his copyright.

The "right to use it" (more specifically "the right to copy it") is the copyright. It is true that if I license you to use a copy of my work (free or for a fee), you cannot pass that license on to anyone else without my explicit permission.

 

The "right to use it" is NOT the copyright. More specifically, "use right" is NOT "copyright". "Use right" = privilege to use the content, but "copyright" = privilege to duplicate the content.

 

Gee, I've got law school books on copyright sitting right here on my desk and what you said contradicts them.

I hope you'll forgive me if I disagree and side with the crowd that's actually read, written and practiced IP law to some degree.

I can't think of a faster way to discredit yourself on the subject. Well done.

 

Your replies are full of opinions, where are the facts?

 

If you think it's opinion, you've just discredited yourself further.

And for the sake of everyone, please go to Copyright.gov and read Copyright BASICS before filling up this LEGAL forum with more pointless posts.

It's one thing to be wrong, we all do it. It's another to be snappy while continuing to WRONGLY correct others.

 

I don't wanna start a fight here, but you are filling it up with all critics.
I would suggest you to read through the website first though.

 

The website just lists the foundation. You need to also read court cases, which fill out the law.

But, it appears English isn't your first language, so I won't continue forward. There's no point in arguing about it. The law is the law.

 

Brandon, the best way to do that is to consult with an attorney who specializes in intellectual property (IP) law (check the Martindale-Hubbell directory of IP attorneys for one near you). At the least, go to www.copyright.gov (assuming you are in the U.S.) and read for yourself the information they have there. As you can see from the "discussion" between marketjunction and AlienGG, asking legal questions on a bulletin board is likely to get you a mixture of good and lousy information - and lousy legal information can cost you $$$$$ and heartache.

 

Some guys get turned on by hot chicks. I get turned on when I hear those two sexy words: Intellectual Property.

Oh, the babes do it for me too. ahem.

 

So MaryBeth Peters must be just your type

 

LOL. Not quite.

But if Jessica Simpson went to law school and started practicing IP law, look out.

 

What? Jessica is not a learned JD already??