Subject: Where's the Contract - Re: ISSUE? What does the copyright claim in I-D/RFCs mean?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:57:44 -0800

There is possibly YET another issue to attend to and that is the contract.
Notice the statement about that the conveyance of exclusive rights is
usually done on a contract. OK - sooooooo where is the contract? -

>
> Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office
> does not have any forms for such transfers.

It seems to me that the IETF's proposition with the releases and
get-"out of this standard submission"-free card it carries in the
boilerplate
of the submission per the IP transfers of RFC2026 and its successors  is
that there specifically is no contract at this time, or so that was SMB's
and
others intents when they fabricated these Teflon-rules. The problem is the
legal concept of reasonable value and consideration. The cost of an
IETF Standard in man hours alone may run to the millions of dollars
which if no other metric is available, defines the cost of the standard if
not its worth as well.

By the way, there may be tax implications in an IETF submission. If there is
no contract and the donation of IP to the IETF is a gift then there are tax
implications of that, and the IETF and especially the trust needs to be able
to defend that it is a proper 501.3c so that proper write-downs from these
gifts to the IETF can be taken.

If there is a contract then what is it - vetting? opinions from technically
talented but uninvolved people, and in some instances, hostile responses as
this initiative may affect others that this other party has allegiance to?
Successful completion of the public-vetting portion of the IETF process?
Anyway - clearly there needs to be a submission contract which defines the
process of vetting and what the participants propose to do for the IETF in
using a slot in the available vetting pool.

As a side line, I would like to suggest that WG chairs are formally tasked
with getting commitments on vetting documents from their membership and that
they manage that - it is afterall their responsibility as WG Chairs, to
manage the pool of vetters they have available.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>; "Contreras, Jorge"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE? What does the copyright claim in I-D/RFCs mean?

>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE? What does the copyright claim in I-D/RFCs mean?
>
>
> > "todd glassey" <[email-masked]> writes:
> >
> > >> That is a well-established term in copyright law, and is what
> > >> magazines and books use.
> > >>
> > >> > The copyright references in the boilerplate are intended to grant
the
> > >> > IETF the necessary rights.
> > >>
> > >> A nit-pick, but may be important: I believe the copyright claim
> > >> doesn't grant the IETF those rights, instead, the claim is present to
> > >> signal to readers that the IETF holds a copyright on the collective
> > >> work.  Granting the necessary rights to do that were done when the
> > >> author contributed the document to the IETF.
> > >
> > > No they weren't if the Exclusive Conveyance of any copyright takes a
wet
> > > signature...
> >
> > The IETF doesn't appear to need a exclusive copyright.  A
> > non-exclusive copyright can be acquired without a wet signature, see:
> >
> > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc
>
> I have, and I disagree - the reasoning is that the IETF needs to be able
to
> control its own IP - without exclusivity, the requirements and who owns
> what - are muddy at best. The IETF needs to have absolute control on the
IP
> being moved through its framework, whether that means that the IETF gives
it
> all away later or not, which by the way is a management decision and not
> particular to the framework itself in reality. Here is that particular
body
> of text from the  link above.[NOTICE the portion of the first sentence
where
> it starts "but the transfer of exclusive"... also note the closing
"Although
> recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties,
it
> does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the
> transfer as against third parties" which brings into focus what has to
> happen to allow ANYONE to rely on the use of these documents or the IP in
> them] - the text of the US Government's Copyright.GOV Website:
> -----
> TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT
> Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of
> those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is
not
> valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the
> rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right
> on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.
>
> A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed
> by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
> succession.
>
> Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various
> state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or
> transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of
> business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.
>
> Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office
> does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the
> recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership.
> Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the
> parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to
> validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on
> recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request
> Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents."
>
> -----
>
> My understanding, although I may be wrong, is that the IETF requires
> exclusive rights in all matters or it cannot control the processes. It
> requires exclusive rights to any and all submissions per RFC2026, BCP78
and
> other documents as well. It requires sole exclusive use and rights to
> anything submitted in its Style Templates for I-D's or RFC's or any other
> documents it intends to republish.
>
> So if that is true, then this matter is not arguable really - the real
issue
> is what this means to EVERY SINGLE IETF Standard on the books already and
to
> all those RFC owners. By my take its a can of worms at best but it can
like
> all of the rest of this IP issue-crap, be dealt with.
>
> Todd Glassey
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Simon
>

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg