Case Study 2 (US): Copyright Transfer vs. Limited Licence
Client: Food and recipe creator, 200k YouTube subscribers, 180k Instagram followers
Jurisdiction: New York, USA (governed by US copyright law)
Issue: Brand demanded full copyright assignment for user‑generated content
The Problem
A large kitchen appliance brand offered the creator $15,000 for a 60‑second YouTube video featuring their new blender. The draft contract included a clause transferring "all rights, title, and interest, including copyright" in the video to the brand. The creator would retain no rights to reuse the content on their own channel or in their portfolio.
The creator was concerned that they would lose the ability to monetise the video long‑term, and that the brand could license the video to third parties without permission.
Our Approach
LegalLens explained the difference between copyright assignment (full transfer) and a limited, exclusive licence. We negotiated with the brand's legal team to replace the assignment clause with a two‑year exclusive licence for the brand's use on social media and their website, with no whitelisting rights. The creator retained copyright and the right to keep the video on their own YouTube channel. We also added a kill fee of 50% if the brand terminated early.
Outcome
The brand accepted the revised terms. The creator was paid the full $15,000 and has since reused clips from the video in two other commercial collaborations. The brand also asked us to draft a similar limited‑licence clause for other creator partnerships.
Key takeaway: Never assign full copyright unless the fee reflects the long‑term value you are giving up.
Ready to Protect Your Next Influencer Campaign?
Every case is unique, but the patterns are predictable. LegalLens helps influencers and brands avoid the same pitfalls – through better contracts, smarter negotiation, and fast dispute resolution.
📩 Contact us at contact@legallens.co.uk for a free 15‑minute consultation. Fixed fees are always capped at 10% of contract value.
These case studies are based on real client work but have been anonymised and modified to protect confidentiality. They do not constitute legal advice and results vary depending on individual circumstances.
