tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post7005338124583245179..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: 2 Live BankruptWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-38029982732133439362007-02-07T18:40:00.000-05:002007-02-07T18:40:00.000-05:00Thanks, Rich for the clarification. I should have ...Thanks, Rich for the clarification. I should have used the second bite at the apple language, but tried instead to track the court's language. What I was trying to get at is what you phrased much better: a separate claim for rejection damages.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-85281612790937808182007-02-07T18:07:00.000-05:002007-02-07T18:07:00.000-05:00Ah, bankruptcy and copyright, one of my favorite t...Ah, bankruptcy and copyright, one of my favorite topics. This story is just one more reason creators should not assign their rights, but rather grant nonexclusive licenses. In that case, if the licensee goes bankrupt, it loses the license, and the rights come home to the creator. See In re Catapult, 165 F.3d 747 (9th Cir 1999). Exclusive licenses, on the other hand, still put you in jeopardy. See Gardner v Nike, 110 F.Supp.2d 1282 (CD Cal 2000).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-68087907626178908602007-02-07T17:14:00.000-05:002007-02-07T17:14:00.000-05:00Interesting case, but a factual clarification. Tho...Interesting case, but a factual clarification. Thompkins wasn't tripped up by a failure to file a pre-petition claim for damages, indeed, it is not possible to file a claim until after a bankruptcy petition has been filed. He did file a claim that would have paid him for royalties owed pre-petition, but that yielded no pay-out. He failed to file a separate claim for rejection damages, that would have (in theory, anyway) paid him for royalties to become due after the sale of the copyright to Lil Joe. See FN 21 and text thereat. This case was Thompkins' attempt to get a second bite at the apple by arguing that Lil Joe could not get the copyright without also accepting the payment obligations that came with it via the original (rejected) agreement.<br /><br />Rich in NYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-22500154685654323262007-02-07T11:53:00.000-05:002007-02-07T11:53:00.000-05:00For another interesting case involving the collisi...For another interesting case involving the collision of Titles 11 and 17, see In re Valley Media, 279 B.R. 105 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002). Suffice it to say that having a well-drafted license agreement is essential . . . .<br /><br />LKB in HoustonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com