10

Let's say there is a MIT Licensed repository on github, then by definition all the files that belongs to the repository is owned by the copyright holder of the repository.

But if I fork the project and create some new files in the repository then who will be the owner of all the newly created files.

Does the newly created files will be owned by the original copyright holder(because he owns the whole repository), or the files that I created will be owned by me.

In case I will be the owner of all the files that I created, can I add a copyright notice at the top of each file containg my name in it?

Vivek Singh
  • 219
  • 2
  • 7

2 Answers2

28

Your question suggests that you regard copyrights as property rights. This is a completely understandable misconception - big content creators push this agenda quite hard - but it is a misconception. Copyright is instead a system of time-limited monopolies on certain acts which the law grants to copyright holders for the ultimate purpose of encouraging creativity.

When Alice creates content, she doesn't own it, but she has a copyright interest in that content; she is a rightsholder therein. It is appropriate, though not a requirement, that she alert the world to this interest with a (c) 2020 Alice-style declaration, preferably at the top of each constituent file. If she publishes it on GitHub, let's say under the MIT licence, she still has a copyright interest in every copy of that content that is made.

Generally, when you fork that repository and edit a file the result is a file in which two people now have a copyright interest - you and Alice. It is appropriate, though not a requirement, that you signal this interest to the world by inserting into the file a declaration such as (c) 2020 Vivek Singh, preferably up by Alice's declaration. Any new file you create which contains new code which is derived (in copyright terms) from the existing code (which is likely to be most of the new files you create) should have both copyright declarations at the top. Any new file which contains only new code with no copyright relationship to the existing code should have your copyright declaration at the top.

For those files which contain both your copyright declarations, both of you are rightsholders in the file, and the consent of both of you is required to do things with that file that are controlled by copyright (including but not limited to copying it and modifying it). Alice has indicated her consent by licensing the content to the world under the MIT licence; how you licence the modified version will indicate to the world what, if any, rights you grant it. You will also need to make a clear license declaration in files with only your declaration in, to clarify the same.

MadHatter
  • 48,547
  • 4
  • 122
  • 166
  • So, if Alice has inserted a copyright notice at the top of a file, then can I add my own name in the notice along with that of Alice after editing it. If so, then is it a good practice to do on a professional level? – Vivek Singh Nov 18 '20 at 11:46
  • 2
    Yes you can, that's what I said. As I also said, it's appropriate to do so; I'd add courteous, and maybe even advisable. It's just not a requirement, is all. – MadHatter Nov 18 '20 at 11:53
  • Just one more thing I need to make clear is if I make some major changes in the repository, such as deleting and creating multiple files or let's say add some new functionality to an app, then do I have copyright interest in just the files that I have modified or I can have copyright interest in the repository as a whole? Thanks for you help. – Vivek Singh Nov 18 '20 at 12:06
  • 1
    You have an interest in the executable which is compiled out of all those files, definitely. I'm less clear about the individual files; my feeling is that if you haven't done anything to any given file, there's no real reason for you to have acquired a rights interest therein. Why do you ask? – MadHatter Nov 18 '20 at 12:18
  • "Why do you ask?" I am currently working on a project where I am recreating the same Ui of an android app with some new api. This needs deleting the old files containing the Ui code and adding new files with new code for the same Ui. So the question arises that if I make a pull request which gets accepted and merged into the original repo, then do I have the copyright interest for just the files that I created in the original repo or do I can have a interest in the whole original repo? (Because I have done a major work in that repo). – Vivek Singh Nov 18 '20 at 12:39
  • I repeat the question: why do you ask? Why do you care which specific files you have an interest in? – MadHatter Nov 18 '20 at 12:39
  • Because I need to add a copyright notice at the top of every file that I create. And I am unclear whose name I need to write in the notice. – Vivek Singh Nov 18 '20 at 12:44
  • 1
    You put your name, assuming you're writing this code yourself, on your own time. – MadHatter Nov 18 '20 at 14:28
  • I'm a little thrown off by "When Alice creates content, she doesn't own it". Is that supposed to mean that the content cannot meaningfully be described as "owned" by anyone at all? Or something else? – David Z Nov 18 '20 at 19:43
  • 6
    @DavidZ Defining ownership is a bit difficult with digital assets. In general though, Alice only owns the original copy of the content she creates, but still retains copyright on any copies of it that are produced even if ownership of those is transferred, unless she specifically waives or transfers copyright. Making an analogy with books, the author has a copyright on the text in the book, but does not own published copies of the book that other people have purchased. – Austin Hemmelgarn Nov 18 '20 at 21:07
  • @AustinHemmelgarn I agree with most of that, but I can't agree that even the original copy is Alice's property. If it's a creative work in tangible form, such as a painting on canvas, or a photographic print, then yes; but if it's a completely intangible work then I don't see how she can own it. She may own the computer on which she wrote it, but if she owned it before writing the work she doesn't own it any the more now, and if she didn't own it before, the writing of the work doesn't make the computer hers. – MadHatter Nov 19 '20 at 12:12
  • @MadHatter She presumably owns the RAM it's stored in, and the hard drive it's written on – hence, owning the copy. A hard drive is effectively the same thing as microfiche, which is effectively the same thing as books with really really tiny pages. – wizzwizz4 Nov 19 '20 at 20:35
  • 1
    @wizzwizz4 she owned them no less before she wrote the code. Nothing's changed. Do not confuse owning the teapot with owning the tea. – MadHatter Nov 19 '20 at 21:50
  • 2
    This does not even attempt to address the question actually asked, which is not about the copied files, or even copied and modified files, but rather about the newly created ones presumably containing the asker's authorship. Of course, that's not really an answerable question, because it depends if those files are intimately coupled to the originals enough to be considered a derivative work. – Chris Stratton Nov 20 '20 at 00:06
  • @ChrisStratton that's amazing. I genuinely hadn't noticed. Thanks for catching that; I've amended my answer so it addresses the question the OP actually asked, as well as the question (s)he should have asked. – MadHatter Nov 20 '20 at 07:36
  • “Copyright is instead a system of time-limited monopolies on certain acts which the law grants to copyright holders for the ultimate purpose of encouraging creativity.” Right. In the US. Not in continental copyright where the copyright is basically a recognition of the individuality of the author embodied in his creative work, not some extra right given by the rest of the society. – Mormegil Nov 20 '20 at 09:05
  • This answer is wrong. Copyright is a type of property right. Just because something is intangible, or because the rules are a bit different to those for tangible property, doesn't preclude it from being property. In fact, law schools typically offer entire courses just on the subject of intellectual property (which includes copyright). This answer could be improved by explaining how copyright differs to other property rights, but without the claim that it isn't a type of property right. – JBentley Nov 20 '20 at 10:04
  • @JBentley you may believe that, but not everyone does (link, link, link). – MadHatter Nov 20 '20 at 11:23
  • The law is not subject to the opinion of laypersons (2nd link), or even the opinions of lawyers (1st and 3rd links) who are merely expressing how they think a term should be used (as opposed to how it is used). None of that will do you a bit of good in a court room, where those of us in the legal profession must work with how terms are used. The only institutions who can change legal definitions are legislatures and courts. In the latter, the phrase "intellectual property" is widely understood and used in a variety of contexts. – JBentley Nov 20 '20 at 11:36
  • Furthermore, it is not necessary for all items falling within a category to share the exact same characteristics. For example, contrast real property with personal property. The laws, rights, and obligations differ greatly between the two, but no sensible lawyer would argue that one of them is not property (even if they think that there ought to be such a differentiation, and even if it's only the former which the lay public sees as property). – JBentley Nov 20 '20 at 11:47
  • @JBentley I'd say (at the risk of misrepresenting him) MadHatter's point here is that the OP's confusion arises out of a belief that a creative work is a rivalrous commodity. This is a sound assumption for personal/real property, but does not apply for information. Perhaps instead of "regard copyrights as property rights" the first sentence could read "regard copyrights as operating rivalrously on things like real/personal property rights do" -- but this is so small a change (and is so much less clean) I wonder if it is worthwhile. – apsillers Nov 20 '20 at 17:41
  • @apsillers Yes, and I do agree with that, hence I said "this answer could be improved by explaining how copyright differs to other property rights, but without the claim that it isn't a type of property right". I don't think the change is minor at all, because one position is completely wrong from a legal perspective, while the other is not (and after all this question is fundamentally a legal question, even though it's not posted on law stack exchange). Perhaps instead of saying it is a "misconception" (which implies incorrectness) it could say that the current terminology is unfortunate. – JBentley Nov 20 '20 at 17:58
  • @apsillers it wasn't what I had in mind, but I think I do agree with that. Problem is, the nonreproducibility of things is one of their principal characteristics, so to say digital content is like real content but with reproducibility is to say that it's less like real property than it is like it. The term intellectual property appears nowhere in UK controlling legislation until the Intellectual Property Act 2014; it is an extremely recent addition to our copyright/trademark/patent law, done at the behest of the large content creators, and as such we can - and should - resist it. – MadHatter Nov 24 '20 at 08:26
1

Does the newly created files will be owned by the original copyright holder(because he owns the whole repository), or the files that I created will be owned by me.

Each author owns the copyright in each element of protectable expression that they authored, until or unless they assign that right to someone else.

In case I will be the owner of all the files that I created, can I add a copyright notice at the top of each file containg my name in it?

If a file contains significant protectable expression that you authored, it is entirely appropriate (though not required) for you to add a copyright notice informing the world of this fact.

David Schwartz
  • 600
  • 2
  • 10