As long as i get to be the frog
That’s what I said makes sense. Then I followed it up with a question that keeps getting glossed over - Why is the language used here atypical when compared to the language other sublicensing contracts?Suppose W owns the copyright in X, and W licenses A to use X, and the terms of the license include both a power and an obligation to sub-license X to other parties on very particular contractual terms. A enters into such a contract with B, thereby bringing it about that B enjoys a licence from W in respect of X.
I keep saying that makes sense. My question is why this formulation isn’t seen in other typical sublicensing contracts.In the scenario just described, it was A's action, in entering into the contract with B, that brought the licence into being. It is W's property that is the subject matter of the licence, and thus W who has been brought into the licensor-licensee relationship with B.
Let’s establish which it is first and then look at implications.What is at stake in asking whether it is W or A who granted the licence?