Opinion ID: 775482
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: License to Adapt

Text: 19 Foad next alleges that defendants infringed its adaptation rights by using much of the revised plot plan in creating the final site plan. But the February 1996 contract contains no language prohibiting others from modifying the revised plot plan. Quite the opposite: The contract contains a clause requiring GenCom to indemnify Foad in the event that others modify the plan and the changes lead to some liability. 14 In addition, that clause does not require GenCom to obtain Foad's consent in order to modify the plans; it only requires consent in order to avoid Foad's waiver of liability. The indemnification clause plus the absence of any prohibition against modification by others indicates that the contract granted GenCom an implied license to hire others to create derivative works using the revised plot plan for the purpose of completing the project. 15 20 Foad points to paragraph 12 of the contract in support of its argument that it did not grant GenCom a license to hire another company to complete the project using the revised plot plan. Paragraph 12 states: 21 All original drawings, plans, documents, other papers and copies thereof prepared in connection with this agreement will remain the property of FOAD CONSULTING GROUP, INC. and may be used without the consent of the client and/owner(s). [T]he aforementioned papers will be kept on file by FOAD CONSULTING GROUP, INC. and copies will be provided to the client and/owner(s) at client and/owner(s)'s request, and at client and/owner(s)'s expense. 22 The paragraph provides Foad no support. It concerns ownership of the original documents and copies prepared by Foad under the agreement. It also makes plain Foad's intention to retain its right to use the documents, presumably by reproduction, adaptation, or publication. However, the paragraph is silent about what GenCom may or may not do with the copies prepared for it. 23 Foad also asks us to consider extrinsic evidence: a declaration from an alleged architectural expert who asserted that, under the custom and practice in the industry, a plan may not be used to produce a similar plan, without the permission of the original designer. 16 This statement does nothing to undermine our conclusion that the contract grants GenCom an implied license to modify the revised plot plan. The contract protects Foad against any liability that might arise from a plan modified by others while imposing no restriction on such modifications. Even assuming that industry custom and practice requires a client to obtain an engineer's consent before modifying a plan created by the engineer, we conclude that the contract gave GenCom the requisite permission. 24