Let Your Voice Be Heard
Speak Out Now

From this moment on, the time of silence has ended and the era of speaking out has began.

What We Do

One way or another, we have our own brushes with copyright laws.
We understand the struggle and the need to speak out.

News & Updates

We provide the latest updates on copyright and intellectual property laws.

Stories & Articles

We will be publishing useful articles and individual stories on copyright struggles.

Network & Forum

We will post information about networks and forum on copyright struggles.

Speak out
Copyright must
not be a tool
for commercial
gains

We fight for genuine copyright protection for artists and content creators.
About Us

The Authors

Articles & Blog

Towards The End Of Copyright?

Towards The End Of Copyright?

Oliver Metivier
In France, what is called copyright refers to the Intellectual Property Code and concerns literary and artistic property but also industrial property. Copyright was belatedly
Song Covers And Copyright

Song Covers And Copyright

Felicienne Beaudouin
The musical work is a work of art composed of sounds and rhythms in which one can also find lyrics. It is a creation protected
Copyright On The Internet

Copyright On The Internet

Felicienne Beaudouin
Behind each image there is a photographer, an illustrator who has the status of author. His works are systematically protected by intellectual property law. Thus,
Copyright And Copyright, So Different?

Copyright And Copyright, So Different?

Oliver Metivier
We often hear in the political debate in France the argument that copyright is a French invention, inspired by the noblest principles, whereas copyright would
Blog, Freedom Of Expression, Intellectual Property And Copyright: What Trends?

Blog, Freedom Of Expression, Intellectual Property And Copyright: What Trends?

Joséphine Perillard
One of the certain advantages of the Internet and the blogosphere is the spirit of openness, freedom of expression and frankness that reign there. Finally,
What Is Copyright In Accounting?

What Is Copyright In Accounting?

Joséphine Perillard
The word ‘Copyright’ is a word that is common in the aspect of writing and content productions. It is notable for its usage in legal

Latest Articles

Towards The End Of Copyright?

Towards The End Of Copyright?

Oliver Metivier
In France, what is called copyright refers to the Intellectual Property Code and concerns literary and artistic property but also industrial property. Copyright was belatedly defined in France, with the law of 11 March 1957. It allows authors to be paid when their work is reproduced or represented (heritage rights). Copyright also allows authors to control the dissemination of their work and intervene if it infringes on their work or person (moral rights). But for copyright to apply, the artistic work must meet several conditions: it must be a “work of the mind” and recognized as an original work, that is, a work bearing the personal mark of its author. With this principle, the law recognizes the author’s attachment to his work, in line with Diderot’s personalist thesis that links the ownership of an artistic property to the identity of its designer. In the last 10 years, copyright has been revised twice (DADVSI Act in 2006 and Creation and Internet Act in 2009) to accompany developments due in particular to the rise of the Internet and its consequences on the creation, production, dissemination and consumption of cultural goods. But many voices are speaking out against copyright or even calling for its outright removal. First, we will see the characteristics of copyright and its economic and social stakes that make the scheme defended by a majority of players in the cultural industries sector. Then we will ask why copyright is being challenged by certain personalities and associations. Finally, in the event of its removal, we will review and criticize the devices that could replace it. In the foundations of copyright, there may be reasons for the current criticisms, but first of all let us analyse the economic and social reasons that led the governments to legislate on the issue. First, copyright was created to protect creators both morally and financially. Indeed, copyright secures the remuneration of artists. For artists, copyright is therefore the possibility of making a living from their work. Copyright is based on several commonly shared ideas in Western societies: first, all work deserves pay and the creation of an artistic work is a work.  Secondly, the figure of the bohemian artist, poor but free, living with difficulty from his art, confers a certain aura to the creators who also enjoy a certain social prestige. Moreover, we can say that copyright has enabled the development of a new market: that of intangible symbolic goods. For economists Merges and Ginsburg, copyright is therefore “a specific response to market imperfections.” Indeed, the characteristics of the cultural and information goods market make it a different market from the traditional goods market. This market is characterized by great uncertainty, high cost of production but low reproductive cost (which promotes plagiarism), non-rivalry and non-exclusiveness (which promotes the movement of cultural goods). Moreover, the symbolic and ideal nature of cultural goods make their “consumption” different from a traditional good: they are experienced goods. The immateriality of cultural goods, even if it materializes on a medium (CD, book …) makes its commodification difficult. How can the intangible content of a cultural work be protected? It therefore seemed essential to legislate to protect creators and develop the industrialization of culture. All of these “anomalies” have been taken into account by parliament in the definition of the law, and copyright therefore allows authors and producers to control the circulation of a cultural work and to exploit it commercially. This control allows to limit access to cultural works and thus create scarcity, a source of economic wealth. Copyright therefore artificially creates rivalry and exclusionability and thus gives economic value to cultural goods. But a “mistake” has crept in: in fact the law grants ownership to what should be only limited control over a work. For economists, this notion of ownership is therefore illegitimate because it produces monopolies. This amalgamation between unlimited ownership and temporary control is a source of criticism. For some economists, the consequences of copyright are multiple and lead to the creation of a questionable market: “emphasis on market powers and monopoly rents, destabilization of competitive play and barriers to entry becoming insurmountable for the weakest players financially, overexploitation of consecrated works and less investment in innovation, curbing adaptations and productive reuse, wilful degradation of the usefulness of cultural goods (due to measures “protection techniques in particular” , increasingly high enforcement costs borne by consumers and taxpayers.” The economic stakes are therefore an important aspect of copyright, which is of course defended by those to whom it benefits economically. Indeed, with the removal of copyrights, it would be a whole model of creation and production that would change with “the deconstruction of the dominant positions [the great majors] and the creation of a free space for creators and amateurs”. A recurring argument is that non-compliance with copyright (e.g., illegal downloading) is a loss of revenue for the economy. However, some economists point to the cost of implementing copyright, which is higher than its positive impact on the economy. The economy is therefore at the centre of the debates around copyright. This economic dimension has been accentuated today with the development of the management of rights portfolios and the exploitation of rights in several media. Indeed, from now on, artistic work can be offered on several media: TV, cinema, book, derivatives… This is the main argument of copyright advocates who even advocate for its strengthening. But one can make a critique of this economist’s perspective: is it not an economic instrumentalization of the law?
Song Covers And Copyright

Song Covers And Copyright

Felicienne Beaudouin
The musical work is a work of art composed of sounds and rhythms in which one can also find lyrics. It is a creation protected by the Intellectual Property Code as a work of the mind as long as it is shaped and original. The author of a work creates. It has heritage rights but also moral rights over its creation, including the right to respect for it. The interpretation of a musical work is protected by neighbouring rights as stipulated in Article L.212-1 of the Intellectual Property Code: “To the exclusion of the complementary artist, considered as such by professional usages, the performer is the person who represents, sings, recites, declaims, plays or otherwise performs a literary or artistic work, a number of varieties circus or puppets. ». Unlike the author of the work that created it, the performer puts his personality at the service of it. Article L.212-2 of the ICC lists the rights against the performer, including the right to respect for his name, quality and interpretation. These are inalienable, imprescriptible and personal rights. It is possible to give a song a “second life” thanks to the increasingly frequent covers. The cover can be simple, i.e. it corresponds to an interpretation by another artist that the original artist remains in keeping with the original. This means that there is no modification of the text or melody, partly to the adaptation, which is a new interpretation of the song. The adaptation takes place, most of the time, when a song is translated into other languages. The best known example is Claude Francois’s song “As usual” which became “My way” in English. Don’t song covers infringe the copyright of the original creators? To answer this question, we must distinguish several cases of figures. Indeed, the scheme differs depending on the exploitation that is made of the takeover: it can simply be posted on a hosting site like Youtube or Dailymotion; social networks such as Instagram, Twitter or Facebook, or be marketed. In addition, there are different forms of covers: you can repeat a song identically, just as you can change the rhythm of the music or adjust certain lyrics, especially for a parodic purpose. The Commercialization Of Music Covers Many artists have taken up pre-existing songs that are identical, more or less successfully. But how do you market a music cover? A performer who wishes to make a cover of songs and market them through physical support must pay a fee to the SDRM (society for the administration of the right of mechanical reproduction) when pressing the music. For a digital operation, this payment does not have to be made: the streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer …) will directly pay the mechanical reproduction rights to SACEM. On the other hand, if the takeover is distributed in streaming outside Europe, saCEM will have to pay these mechanical reproduction rights. In any case, the performer does not have to be asked by the cover artist since he holds neighbouring rights: he did not create the song but only performed it for the first time. The original performer has only rights to the recording of the original piece but not to the cover. Nor will he be paid if the song is repeated. Only the songwriter will have rights to the cover if the work has not fallen into the public domain of course. For example, in 2013, singers France Gall and Jenifer engaged in a real media battle. Jenifer had released an album entitled “My Statement”, composed entirely of covers of the greatest tracks of France Gall. However, France Gall claimed that she had not given her permission to the project. Universal, producer of the cover album, defended itself by saying: “We didn’t legally need the approval of France Gall because we respected the original works.” France Gall is not the author of the songs, she is only the performer of these songs, often written by Michel Berger or Serge Gainsbourg. Could as a performer object to this cover album? Jenifer had no legal obligation to ask France Gall to do a cover of the songs she had performed, on the other hand, the practice in the music industry is that the performer could be made aware of the cover. France Gall, as a performer, could not stand in the way of Jenifer’s covers. It should be noted that France Gall received no cents from Jenifer’s album “My Statement” since only the composers of the original songs – or their rightful owners – were able to receive a salary. Covers Of Music On The Internet In recent years, the development of hosting platforms and social networks has led to the proliferation of song covers. Justin Bieber, Kendji Girac, Angèle and so many others have made themselves known by posting covers of songs on Youtube or Instagram. But what are the rules to respect in order not to infringe the copyright of the creator of the original work? To publish a cover on the Internet, it is necessary to obtain the approval of the songwriter and publishers of phonograms at the risk of being accused of counterfeiting. To do this, it is enough to ask saCEM for permission: when a song is part of the repertoire of the collective management society, it can be interpreted freely by an artist, in return, a remuneration must be paid to it. To make a cover in accordance with the original and publish it on Youtube, there is no authorization to ask the original creator simply because the famous platform has made an agreement with SACEM: Youtube will pay directly to saCEM the remuneration due to it. However, this agreement does not apply if the performer publishes his cover on another hosting platform, Dailymotion for example. Nevertheless, the agreement of the songwriter of the original song will be obligatory, even on Youtube, when the video published is an adaptation of the original that is to say that there is a modification of the lyrics or melody. Despite this agreement, replays posted on Youtube remain subject to an algorithm called “Content ID” that automatically triggers when a published video “includes copyrighted content”. The video may be blocked or demonetized if a person (often copyrighted companies) claims a forgery. To avoid copyright infringement, the best thing to do is to look at the “Create” and then “Music Rules” tab on Youtube, which lists most songs with how they can be used and in which country. For example, Dr. Dre’s song “The Next Episode” cannot appear in a video or be replayed or its video deleted. By contrast, George Michael’s song “Careless Whisper” can be covered all over the world. It is the rights holders who set these rules. On social media, nothing seems to stand in the way of posting covers without the consent of the original authors. However, for some, Article 13 of the European Copyright Directive would lead to the disappearance of this practice. On September 4, 2018, a user tried to post a cover of Bach on Facebook at the piano. Facebook, through an algorithm, had not authorized the release of this video, which would be contrary to the copyright of Jean-Sebastien Bach, who died 268 years ago. For opponents of Article 13 of the European Directive, the problem is that the systematization of this filtering algorithm will prevent the dissemination of certain works, including covers of music, sometimes falling into the public domain. Despite some errors that may arise through bond filtering, Article 13 remains a real boon for artists who will finally be paid their fair value on the Internet. The Question Of Adapting A Song For A Parodic Purpose The parody exception is found in Article L.122-5 of the Intellectual Property Code: “When the work has been disclosed, the author cannot prohibit: (…)  (4) Parody, pastiche and caricature, given the laws of the genre.” The parody must still respect certain rules: there must be no risk of confusion with the parody work and the parody must be intended to make people laugh. All works can be parodied whether it is comics, paintings, books or music. In the case of music, we are no longer talking about a cover but adaptation because there is a change, most of the time, of the lyrics. In a judgment dated January 9, 1970, the Paris High Court admitted that in musical matters, parody exists only if the author wanted to obtain a cartoonish effect, foreign to the original work, without the risk of confusion. If the parody song respects these rules, the author of the parody will not have to ask the author of the original work for approval thanks to this exception, whereas it is necessarily requested when adapting a music, without a parodic purpose. The character of this exception can be disputed: it was created for the purpose of freedom, but parody can sometimes infringe the rights of the authors of the parody work in a considerable way. Notably because the right of paternity does not have to be mentioned; just as the parody work can undermine the integrity of the parody work. There must be a proper balance between the freedom of the adapter and the respect of the author of the original work. For example, Dieudonné had adapted the song “Shoahnanas” to music by Annie Cordy. The Court of Justice of the European Union did not recognize the parodic nature of this adaptation because of the words “clearly anti-Semitic and deniers who are exclusive to any humorous intention”, the Court also wished to recall “the importance of the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin”. The Paris High Court on 15 June 2017 also admitted that there was a crime of public insult against a group of people in relation to their religious affiliation, so the exception of parody could not be allowed because of the lack of humorous purpose. Beyond the discriminatory nature of the parodic song, this adaptation really undermines the original work, Annie Cordy’s song. Would she have agreed, if her consent had been obligatory, that one of her songs be adapted with an anti-Semitic character? In other cases, the judges have admitted parody despite some controversies, such as when the Court of Cassation on 12 January 1988 recognized the parody exception to Thierry Leluron for adapting Charles Trenet’s song “Douce France”, which became “Sweet Tres”. Some authors had criticized this position as a mockery of Charles Trenet’s homosexuality in Thierry Leluron’s adaptation. All these possible situations create many uncertainties about the rights and obligations conferred on the artist of recovery.
Copyright On The Internet

Copyright On The Internet

Felicienne Beaudouin
Behind each image there is a photographer, an illustrator who has the status of author. His works are systematically protected by intellectual property law. Thus, on the Internet, just because an image does not display a “copyright” or “all rights” mention does not mean that it is free of rights. Can I freely use a photo found on the Internet? Although it’s tempting and very easy, you can’t! Unless you get permission from the author. Only he can decide the conditions of exploitation of his work. The mention of copyright is only there to remind the public that it is not free to republish an image, but its absence does not mean that copyright does not apply. According to the Intellectual Property Code, copyright protection applies to all works of the mind regardless of gender, form of expression, merit or destination. Provided the work is original and the result of creative work. To illustrate your blog posts or social media posts, check out our list of free and free image banks. The photos are published under a Creative Commons 0 license, that is, the authors have agreed to share their work with Internet users who can then reuse them freely. Beware, there are several types of Creative Commons licenses. Not all of them grant the same rights. It’s up to you to check which license is submitted to the visual you want to broadcast. Can I copy a text found on the internet? No, I don’t think so. The text is also protected by the intellectual property code. You cannot take it back on your own, unless you have obtained the author’s permission and cite your sources. Moreover, copying a text will not bring you anything in terms of referencing. Google easily identifies duplicated content and indexes only the original page, the first to be published. Can I stream a video of a concert recorded with my smartphone on YouTube? Again, no! Just because you’re recording a video on your smartphone or other device doesn’t necessarily mean you own the copyright to that content. For example, if you record a concert, it is likely that the artist, label or publisher will own the rights to the show. Similarly, if you buy music online, you may not have the right to include them in your videos, especially if you then stream them on the web. Are the artworks available for free? Yes… And no! Not all works of art are in the public domain. They did not fall there until 70 years after the death of their author. But beware, there may be some subtleties. Thus, the Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 for the Universal Exhibition of Paris, is no longer subject to copyright… only for photos and videos taken during the day! Indeed, since 1985, as soon as night falls, the Eiffel Tower is illuminated by projectors that give it this famous golden color and, every hour, it sparkles thanks to 20,000 lights. These lights are considered an original creation and are therefore protected by copyright. The use of the image of the illuminated Eiffel Tower is therefore subject to authorisation, as long as it is no longer limited to the private sphere. On the internet, everything seems just a click away. Social networks have revolutionized content sharing and are helping to give the illusion that everything online is available. But remember that any use of a work requires the consent of its author, at the risk if not of being forced to pay damages for infringement.
Copyright And Copyright, So Different?

Copyright And Copyright, So Different?

Oliver Metivier
We often hear in the political debate in France the argument that copyright is a French invention, inspired by the noblest principles, whereas copyright would be the quintessence of the most crude and gluttonous capitalism. What about the real world (and not in law school)? In one of the countless questionnaires sent to candidates for the last presidential election, we find this question which, as you see, is very slightly oriented: “Q: What legal point of view of copyright do you defend: copyright – the moral and heritage rights of authors, individuals – or Copyright, a purely economic right for companies holding exploitation rights over works?” This cartoonish way of presenting the two systems, and asserting that one is “moral” while the other would be lowly financial is very common in France. I randomly take a newspaper that hangs around and find it (Yellow and Red, April 2012) “The first [copyright] is based on a utilitarian and economic conception, putting business and the exploitation of rights at the heart of the system. The second [copyright] is based on humanism, it places the author’s person at the heart of rights. Beautiful lyrical flight, from someone who, in the rest of the article, defends the interests of the entertainment industry. What about the theory? By simplifying quite a bit (and I apologize to my legal readers), we can say that copyright includes two rights, a moral right that is inalienable (the author cannot sell it, even if he absolutely wants it) and a heritage right that is a commodity like any other and that the author can negotiate for money. Copyright, the above-mentioned articles say, includes only heritage law. Practical consequences? Moral law guarantees the author certain rights (inalienable, as we have seen) such as the right of withdrawal that allows an author to say “finally, I don’t want to be published my book/film/music, stop everything”. And this regardless of the contract that his publisher forced him to sign taking advantage of his financial needs. And what about? First, things have changed. Since the United States signed the Bern Convention, even they have some kind of moral right. But above all, this false opposition, carefully staged, “nice left-wing French with their copyright against wicked American capitalists interested only in money with their copyright” does not correspond to practice. In both cases, the creator receives very little and, above all, has no effective control over his work. Certainly, in theory, the copyright system gives it privileges that it does not have with copyright. But, in practice… For example, the right to withdraw mentioned above. Can you imagine a writer going to his publisher and asking him to stop publishing the novel? Even if he did, he would have no chance of being published afterwards… In the United States as in France, everything is done only according to the balance of power. A director whose films are successful may require the “final cut” (right to respect the work), and another has no right, whether under copyright or copyright. Worse, this artificial opposition is regularly invoked to justify the worst abuses (such as extending the term of “copyright” long after the author’s death), or as HADOPI. When someone begins with a lyrical ode to copyright, creation of the French Revolution and patati and patata, we can be sure that he will call in the process for control and repression against those who would have the audacity to share the works of the spirit. Finally, politically, this opposition amounts to denying that France is a capitalist country, suggesting that, unlike the mythical “Anglo-Saxon world”, our system to escape the brazen laws of money. I know that some creators prefer to live by illusions but they should face reality: they are proletarians and, as such, have no rights. Copyright against copyright opposition is therefore just the ideological smokescreen.
Blog, Freedom Of Expression, Intellectual Property And Copyright: What Trends?

Blog, Freedom Of Expression, Intellectual Property And Copyright: What Trends?

Joséphine Perillard
One of the certain advantages of the Internet and the blogosphere is the spirit of openness, freedom of expression and frankness that reign there. Finally, that’s what a lot of people think. Some recent events have upset this general belief that anything is possible online.  Can we say anything? Are we freer than in real life? No, absolutely not.  We are responsible for our actions and we must be held accountable for our actions both online and offline. Even if sometimes we do not understand very well why. In this context, I offer you a small review of recent events that will tell you that you must be attentive, but also a guide to bad practices to avoid unpleasant surprises. Trademarks As incredible as it may be, you can’t use a word that has been trademarked as you wish. A striking example is the common name used to refer to a small foot-powered boat (you know what I mean). Tour operators and tour operators can never reproduce this word in their brochures, and obviously not on their sites either if we believe this post. comments are very informative. Even more incredible, the very recent case of the use of the word “entrepreneurs” by MrBoo, founder of HelloTipi, and Mathilde. He used the word, which is also commonly used in the blogosphere and elsewhere, in regular non-profit meetings for more than a year. A domain name containing the word is also online. It turns out that someone registered this name as a trademark in December 2006… And now demands a 15,000 euro fine. Let’s add the famous Speed-Dating case a few months ago, and you will understand that the Internet is not a place of lawlessness, quite the contrary. The question therefore arises: what place should be given to freedom of expression if even the use of words derived from common language is prohibited and liable to damages of several thousand euros? If cases of this kind remain uncommon, it is worth paying attention to our vocabulary and the use made of trademarks (and especially logos) as part of not being clear and accurate about this on blogging ink risks. Defamation To continue with this famous freedom of expression, know that the line between criticism and defamation can sometimes be thin. Just because the web is virtual doesn’t mean that the words we make about it don’t have any real significance. So be careful not to ignite and go too far in comments or posts. Indeed, the writings remain, especially on the Internet. The case of the DatingWatch blog speaks for itself. This observatory of dating sites published an investigation questioning the practices of such a site. After trial, the two bloggers were ordered to pay a symbolic euro of damages and interest (130,000 euros were requested), but also to pay 8500 euros in legal fees. They also appeal for donations on their blog to pay this amount. Your comments, if they are not proven or sufficiently argued, may result in a court summons. So be careful not to slip. It will always be better to hold back in doubt. Copyright This is probably the most common drift on the Internet. Copyright is far from being respected by all, yet it is a most important concept. Music, photos, texts… Everything you place on your blog is subject to copyright. For the example of music, it is therefore important to use a legal player (to my knowledge there is only one, Deezer…), or broadcast music free of rights thanks for example to Jamendo. The Intellectual Property Code is clear and precise on the definition of copyright and on the risks involved: “Any full or partial representation or reproduction, translation, adaptation, transformation, arrangement of a work made without the consent of the author or its rights holders (heirs and copyright holders such as publishers and producers, copyright management companies) is illegal (Article L122-4 of the ICC). Making a work available to the public via the Internet requires the permission of its author or rights holders. A person who reproduces a work on an Internet server without the author’s permission to make it available to the public commits an act of infringement (Articles L 335-2 and L 716-9 of the ICC). Counterfeiting is a civil offence (punishable by damages) and a criminal offence (punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 150,000 euros). Counterfeiting covers all illegal reproductions and distributions, i.e. unauthorized.” Exceptions that are likely to be of interest to bloggers include short quotations “subject to clearly stated author’s name and source, analyses and short quotations justified by the critical, polemical, pedagogical, scientific or informational nature of the work to which they are incorporated”, press reviews, works in the public domain and caricatures and parodies. In the end, publish copying/pasting press articles or other sites, placing photos without the permission of their authors and any such practices should be avoided. Creative Commons contracts work differently. If you will be free to reproduce the works placed under this license, certain rules must be respected. Conclusion The Internet has made it easier to speak. Everyone can now express themselves according to their desires. However, the web is not an area of non-rights and rules must be respected, especially in terms of copyrights, trademarks and defamation. Beware, your actions can be fraught with consequences. If there is a legal vacuum or blur in some areas, it is better not to play with fire, the fallout can be very negative.
What Is Copyright In Accounting?

What Is Copyright In Accounting?

Joséphine Perillard
The word ‘Copyright’ is a word that is common in the aspect of writing and content productions. It is notable for its usage in legal claims of certain content. It is also used to discourage replication or usage of the content without permission from the rightful owner. However, copyright in accounting can be slightly different, according to CPA Tulsa. Conventionally, copyright is the legal right that equips you with the ability to oversee content publication. It is a power by law to decide who may publish, use, and copy any content and media content. In accounting, copyrights are the legal way of protecting future revenue earning assets. They are also the intangible assets reported on a company’s balance sheet alongside other assets. What are the Examples of Copyright in Accounting? Copyrights are intangible assets amortized over some time. They are similar to trademarks and patents, and the period of amortization is known as useful life. The cost of the intangible assets is distributed evenly throughout the useful life by the amortization process. Also, each expense must align with the revenue they generalize at the end of each period. Significant examples of copyrights in accounting are trademarks, patents, and financial assets. Account receivable, stocks, and bonds are also examples of items recorded as copyrights. However, copyrights and patents are known to be examples of intangible assets with a definite useful life. The following are a brief explanation of a few intangible assets; 1. Identifiable Intangible Assets Any assets that can be separated from the company’s assets are known as identifiable intangible assets in a company. They can also be listed for selling by the company. Examples of such assets are patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual properties. Likewise, computer software and other computer programs aside from hardware are categorized as identifiable intangible assets. 2. Unidentifiable Intangible Assets Assets that cannot be physically separated from the company’s assets are known as unidentifiable intangible assets. Goodwill generated externally as a result of a merger or acquisition of another company is an excellent example of such. The branding and reputation of a company can also be said to be unidentifiable intangible assets. Other assets such as logos and trademarks can be sold, but it is impossible to separate a company from its reputation. However, the difference between the identifiable and unidentifiable intangible assets is their amortization. The intangible assets are amortized in consideration of their useful life. Unidentifiable intangible assets on their own cannot be amortized. 3. Patent This is a legal license given to someone to make use of or sell a particular invention. The three types of patents are the utility patent, a design patent, and the plant patent. A patent is an intangible asset with a limited useful life of 20 years. It is listed on a company’s balance sheet as an intangible asset. 4. Franchises And Licenses It is a legal entitlement given to a company to sell a product or service that belongs to another company. It is a license that grants you the right to use someone else’s intellectual property. It also gives the right to make use of the name and brand of an existing company. The franchise is known to be the company offered the right while the franchisor is giving the right. What Does Amortizing A Copyright Means? To every copyright, there is a useful life. It is the time business copyright can provide its revenue. The value of copyright is expected to experience a decrease. Therefore, it has become necessary for intangible assets like copyright to be amortized. Amortization calculates the total copyright expense at the end of useful life and allocates each expense evenly to each year. At the end of each year, the expense is listed as the amortization amount subtracted from the copyright value. The method of amortizing copyright in accounting is known as the straight-line method. Conclusion Copyright is an intellectual property right a creator of content or unique work holds. It can be used in any industry where ideas are created by people to enhance productivity. However, copyright in accounting is known to be an intangible asset of a company. Intangible assets can be classified into identifiable intangible assets and unidentifiable intangible assets. They are recorded in the balance sheet of the company at the end of the year. Some significant examples of intangible assets are copyrights, patents, trademarks, and some other financial assets.
Scroll to Top