Unveiling the Myth that Characterizes the Assignment Contract of Copyrights under the Cameroonian Law
Keywords:
Assignment, contract, copyright, myth, unveilAbstract
This article deals with the assignment contract for copyright under the 2000 law on copyright and neighbouring rights under the Cameroonian law. The study reveals that the assignment agreement in its real sense is not effective. The real legal problem in this research work is that in an assignment contract, an assignor is not completely relieved of his obligations and liabilities after the assignment agreement has been signed. This means that the assignor, who is the original party to the contract, still has obligations in the case where the assignee fails to perform the contract, to fulfill the terms of the contract even though the assignee reaps the benefits. The main objective of this study is to explore the extent of the legal implications surrounding the rights and obligations of the parties under an assignment contract in a copyright work which is so rampant in today’s modern contract with regards to the transfer of rights and obligations under Cameroonian law. In this study, the researcher has adopted an analytical and exploratory approach to data analysis. As a result, data obtained from personal observation and secondary sources was used to capture the objective of the study. Consequently, the paper concludes that the non-use of a proper term under the 2000 copyright law may have given rise to the myth that characterizes the assignment contract of copyright, therefore suggesting that the incorporation of the term assignment or grant will set forth broad guidelines in the resolution of the myth in the domain of the assignment contract of copyrights.
References
Wikipedia Contributors. Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. (2022). [Online] Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Africaine_de_la_Propri%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Intellectuelle.
Libguides.com. (2020). LibGuides: The law of intellectual property: International IP. Online Available from: https://law-hawaii.libguides.com/c.php?g=125450&p=821792.
Law No. 2000/011 of 19th December 2000 on Copyrights and Neighbourings Rights and its Decree of application of November 1st 2001.
Law No. 2000/011 of 19th December 2000 on Copyright and Neighbouring rights.
See the case of Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205, 22 L.Ed. 577.
See the case of Merchants Service Co. v Small Claims Count, 35, Cal.2d, 109.113(Cal. 1950).
295 III.App.3d 17(III. APP. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998).
99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930).
See Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd edition.
Bangui Agreement of 2nd of March 1977 as revised on the 24th of February 1999.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication No. 450(E) ISBN 977-92-805-
-0.
Article 5 of the Berne Agreement of 2nd of March 1977 as revised on the 24th of February 1999.
David Moser & Cheryl Slay, Music Copyright Law, Course Technology, Cengage Learning, & Boston MA, 2012.
See Section 17(1) of the 2000 law.
See Section 15 (1) of the 2000 law on copyright and neigbouring right.
See Section 19 of the 2000 law.
See Section 14, ibid.
See Section 16 of the 2000 law on Copyright.
This is protected by the provision of Section 22 of 2000 Copyright law.
Wto.org. (2023). WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS)—agreement text—standards. [Online] Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/31bis_trips_04_e.htm.
See Section 6, Ibid.
See Section 14 (1) of the 2000 Copyright Law.
See Article 6 of the 1886 Berne Convention.
Indiankanoon.org. (2023). Section 18 in the Copyright Act, 1957 [Online] Available from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1703533/#:~:text=(1)%20The%20owner%20of%20the,in%20the%20case%20of%20the.
See the case of Knott v McDonalds Corp. 985 F.Supp.1222 (N.D Cal. 1997).
National Reserve Co. v Metropolitan Trust Co. 17. Cal. 2d. 827 (Cal. 1941).
No. 08 C 3301, 2013 WL. 4401676 (N.D III Aug. 15 2013.
Summary Judgment Opinion, 2013 WL4401676, at*5.
Deeth Williams Wall. Is “one dollar” sufficient consideration for an assignment? (2013). [Online] Available from: https://www.dww.com/articles/%E2%80%9Cone-dollar%E2%80%9D-sufficientconsideration-for-an-assignment.
Id. at *6-7.
Id. at *7.
Americanbar.org. (2020). Using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/pretrialpractice-discovery/practice/2020/using-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-54b-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/.
See the case of Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc, 219 III.2d 135, 301 III. Dec. 440,847 N.E.2d.99,109(III.2006).
See also Davis v. Wells, 104 U.S. 159, 168, 26 L. Ed. 686 (1881).
17, U.S.C Section 204 (a).
Article 28, Ibid.
(RFA No.18/2019 & CM Nos. 786.789/2019, on 11 January 2019.
N. SATHISH KUMAR.J. http://www.judis.nic.C.S No.880 of 2018 den. C.S. No.880 of 2018,19.11.2019. http://www.judis.nic.in
Section 33 of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 (hereinafter ‘’The Act’’).
Indiankanoon.org. (2020). M/S. Novex Communications ... vs Dxc Technology Pvt. Ltd [Online] Available from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97106760/.
(hereafter “Eros’’).
(hereafter “Zee’s).
Judgment: Laws (DLH)-2019-1-139, High Court of Delhi decided on February 11, 2019, (Copyright Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.
