(1)Copyright is transmissible by assignment, by testamentary disposition or by operation of law, as personal or moveable property.
(2)An assignment or other transmission of copyright may be partial, that is, limited so as to apply—
(a)to one or more, but not all, of the things the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do;
(b)to part, but not the whole, of the period for which the copyright is to subsist.
(3)An assignment of copyright is not effective unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor.
(4)A licence granted by a copyright owner is binding on every successor in title to his interest in the copyright, except a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and without notice (actual or constructive) of the licence or a person deriving title from such a purchaser; and references in this Part to doing anything with, or without, the licence of the copyright owner shall be construed accordingly.
Cases considering section 90 24
[2021] EWCA Civ 1770 · 2 December 2021
The court confirmed that an assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor. It treated the agreement as satisfying those formalities when objectively construed as an assignment. (see para [28])
[2010] EWCA Civ 1222 · 2 November 2010Interprets
The court treats section 90 as the governing statutory scheme for copyright assignments and rejects importing unstated common-law restrictions. Its language permits the automatic reverter agreed in the songwriting agreements. (see paras [35]-[39]; [90]-[105])
The court treats the reference to transmission as personal or movable property as contextual and refuses to import common-law constraints on personal property into the statutory requirements for effective copyright assignment. (see para [92])
The court interprets subsection (2) broadly. A partial assignment may be limited to part of the copyright period, and uncertainty as to the termination event does not make the assignment ineffective. (see paras [35]-[39]; [90]-[105])
The court notes that the provision contains no express certainty requirement for identifying the rights assigned and considers ordinary contractual certainty sufficient. The issue was not disputed in the appeal. (see para [94])
The court holds that an assignment for part of the copyright period need not be fixed and certain at the date of assignment. It may terminate on the happening of a future event, so that the copyright automatically reverts. (see paras [36]-[39]; [95]; [99]-[105])
The court identifies signed writing, together with the requirements in subsection (2), as part of the statutory requirements for an effective copyright assignment. Compliance with this provision was not the disputed issue. (see paras [90]-[92])
[2026] EWHC 2330 (Ch) · 10 September 2026Limits
The court held that acquisition of a business does not generally transfer copyright without an express assignment, so acquisition of brands alone did not establish title. (see para [128(i)])
4 more judgments, and what each says about section 90, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.