Lawmatters.in

It isn’t unusual to have a contract which assigns “all rights in perpetuity throughout the world”. Obtaining worldwide rights isn’t enough to satisfy some entities though and they’ve begun to have contracts drafted in which rights are assigned “throughout the universe”.

The phrase “throughout the universe” isn’t commonly used in India but seems to be becoming relatively common in some parts of the world. It seemed like a massive overkill, so the first time I saw it (in a Publishing Agreement), I discussed it with a lawyer who gave me a rather strange look and then told me that she usually defines the territories to which a contract pertains in terms of countries or continents, adding that that should pretty much cover it.

A recent article in the WSJ – Lawyerese Goes Galactic as Contracts Try to Master the Universe – might explain the phenomenon though: “Paranoia is Paramount”. So, when you’re trying to ensure that you’ve covered every possible base, you define your territory as “the Universe”. And you might also come up with other manifestations of Paranoia by using phrases like “from the beginning to Time”.

Such overkills are sometimes defended by saying that they are “efficient and reliable” methods to ensure that there are no limitations or restrictions. However, personally, I think I’d prefer to use terms like “without territorial limitations” than to use futuristic terms like “the Universe” in defining a territory.

Of course, “without territorial limitations” has its limitations too: would without territorial limitation refer to Earth alone and not apply to, well, outer space? And if one were to use a phrase such as “all over the Earth and in space”, would that mean that the rights granted in a contract could not be exercised on Neptune because it may not technically be “space” since it is an “ice giant”? If a lawyer suspects that these are issues which may cause litigation in future, he would probably do well to define the territory as “the Universe”.

However, considering that we’re probably nowhere near conducting inter-galactic commerce, or even inter-planetary commerce within our own solar system, it would probably not be necessary to define a contractual territory so broadly. That being said, today, there are often situations in which parties to contracts find themselves embroiled in disputes because contracts which they signed thirty years ago did not take into consideration the development of the Internet or the creation of a number of “new” methods to exploit various rights such exploitation through DVDs with reference to the copyright in Films. When it comes to IP contacts, it’s now almost standard practice to say that the rights granted “may be exploited using any technology currently known or developed in the future”.

Talking about the Universe does nothing beyond taking into account massive technological advances that would change the territory in which rights could be exploited. After all, the possibility of there being human settlements on the far side of the moon in less than a century’s time may not be nil.

Perhaps using terms which now seem futuristic isn’t about Paranoia but about Prudence. Who knows? Just maybe, the world (?) portrayed in Star Trek will be reality in the not too distant future.

Addendum: After all, scientists already seem to have found water on the moon. And there are debates beginning to emerge about whether the resources on the moon can be exploited by any country — the Treaty of the Moon has been ratified by less than two dozen States, and none is them is really into exploring space. As such, it isn’t the most effective treaty which has ever been signed.