Can you duplicate copyright for a copyright transfer?
<p>Normally, when you do a copyright transfer, you're no longer the holder of the copyright, and thus cannot make a copyright claim (in other words, cannot assert copyright in the source code; but can still nonetheless make an authorship claim, as many authors do).</p>

<p>Is there a way to share the copyright, e.g., for a natural person to assign the copyright to some other party on a shared basis, such that both parties could claim the copyright at the same time on the same piece of work?  Is <a href="http://ngx.su/src/core/nginx.h" rel="noreferrer">it</a> legal?</p>

<h2>In Canada</h2>

<h3>Initial ownership of Copyright</h3>

<p><em>Copyright Act</em> §13 (1):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(2):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Where the author of a work was in the employment [...] and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The "author" may be a joint author. Joint authorship means (§2):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If the authors did not intend to create a joint work, but rather just contributed independent parts to a work, it is considered a "collective work", with each author maintaining copyright only in those parts that are originally theirs. The <em>Copyright Act</em> defines a collective work to be (among a few other things):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>any work written in distinct parts by different authors, or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated</p>
</blockquote>

<h3>Assignment and licencing</h3>

<p>§13(4)-(7) The owner can transfer in whole or in part the copyright to another party. The owner can also give a licence to interest in any of the rights protected by copyright rather than an assignment. Licencing is different than assignment (see <em>Euro-Excellence v. Kraft</em>). In the case of partial transfer, for the purposes of the Copyright Act, the assignee is treated as the owner of the copyright with respect to the assigned rights.</p>

<h3>Exclusive licence</h3>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there a way to share the copyright, e.g., for a natural person to assign the copyright to some other party on a shared basis, such that both parties could claim the copyright at the same time on the same piece of work?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This was partially tested in <em><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc37/2007scc37.html" rel="nofollow">Euro-Excellence v. Kraft</a></em>. The issue in that case was that Kraft Canada was sold an <em>exclusive licence</em> to use some work related to the Toblerone brand in Canada. Euro-Excellence imported into Canada and sold products that used the copyrighted work (produced with authorization in Europe). One question was whether Kraft, an exclusive licensee, could bring a copyright infringement suit. The court recognized that "<em>Where the owner of a copyright has granted an exclusive licence, it has temporarily granted a proprietary interest in the copyright itself to the exclusive licensee</em>", citing <em>Copyright Act</em> §13(7). The act gives "<em>the exclusive licensee the right to invoke the Act for copyright infringement not only against third parties, but also against the owner-licensor</em>".</p>

<h3>Summary</h3>

<p>In Canada, splitting of Copyright can happen in a few situations:</p>

<ul>
<li>joint authorship, which is more a sharing rather than a splitting of the right,</li>
<li>collective works, which gives each contributor copyright only to their contributions,</li>
<li>partial transfer (for which the statute deems each party to be "owner" only with respect to the rights they retain), and</li>
<li>licencing (which isn't really ownership, but does give some rights to a party who would otherwise not have them, including, in the case of exclusive licencing, the right to invoke the act for copyright infringement).</li>
</ul>

<p>I wouldn't call any of these situations "duplication". But, that's just a word choice.</p>

<h3>Your example</h3>

<p>Your linked example appears to be either a work of joint authorship or a collective work, but we lack the information needed to make that determination. Also, the declaration of copyright ownership in your linked example shouldn't be taken as fact. Who actually <em>owns</em> the copyright is not dependent on what is claimed in the file.</p>

<h2>In the US</h2>

<p>Initial ownership, joint authorship, collective works, and partial transfer are largely the same in the US as in Canada. See <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201" rel="nofollow">17 U.S.C. 201</a>.</p>

<p>Yes: You can share ownership, and you can list multiple owners in a copyright notice (<a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/1121/10">here is an example</a>), <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/1857/10">but you don't have to</a>.</p>

<p>You can think of a copyright in a creative work as being like a bushel of wheat.  You can easily split that bushel up into four pecks, keep one yourself and hand the other three over to other people/entities.</p>

<p>This is done all the time in music copyrights, where you have a song co-writer...each owns 50% of the copyright.  That song is then contracted with a publisher...now the publisher owns half (for example) of each of the co-writer's shares.</p>

<p>The result of this split is that the revenues generated by the copyright are split according to the copyright splits.</p>

<p>I might mention that the numbers I selected here for examples are completely arbitrary, and can be split out however the parties may contractually agree.  One might have 100 members of an ensemble that agree to each hold 1% of the copyright, or conversely one might find an ensemble where one person holds 90% of the copyright and the other only 10% (certain co-written songs of Madonna and J-lo and Beyonce come to mind...).</p>

<p>One additional point...copyright is not quite the same thing as authorship.  They're intrinsically intertwined, but authorship puts credits in your CV, while copyright puts credits in your bank account.</p>

<p>Let's take one other example:  You write a book.  Your wife then divorces you. In the negotiated settlement you assign 25% of your book copyright to her.  You now own 75% of your copyright, she owns 25%.  If money is made, she gets some, you get some.  You both own copyright</p>

copyright software authorship copyright-transfer