直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Court Finds Artist Granted Implied License When Submitting Drawings to Design Firms

May 15, 2014

Authored and Edited by Brian R. Westley

An artist who created drawings of new home plans for design firms granted the firms an implied license to distribute those copyrighted works to others—even though the artist’s invoices stated the drawings could not be distributed without his permission, a federal court has ruled.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama stated that it “defies logic” that the design firms Red Door Homes and SMA Operations Management would pay artist Keith Karlson for his drawings if all the design firms could do was make copies and not actually share them with clients. Karlson v. Red Door Homes LLC, No. 11-cv-1511,2014 WL 1765186 (N.D. Ala. April 30, 2014).

The court instead determined the artist granted the design firms an implied license to use his drawings in furtherance of their business. The court explained that an implied license is created when (1) a licensee requests the creation of a work; (2) the licensor makes the work and delivers it to the licensee; and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee copy and distribute his work. Because the parties did not dispute the first two elements, the sole issue was whether the artist intended that the design firms use and distribute his work. Looking at the objective evidence, the court determined that since the artist knew the design firms were going to display his drawings to their customers to encourage the purchase of new homes, it was reasonable to infer that the artist intended for the firms to distribute his drawings. The court granted summary judgment for the design firms, ruling that because the firms paid for the drawings the artist could not unilaterally revoke the implied license.

The court explained that the artist’s invoices were not part of the contract between the parties because they were sent to the design firms after the fact. The court added that the artist offered no evidence that the design firms actually agreed to be bound by the language in the invoices.

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP