Also known as: indivision · indivisum · undivided · inalienable
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An interest or obligation not separable into parts. It is held by two or more persons in undivided shares so that each owner possesses the whole rather than a distinct portion.
Lena and Mark purchased an 80-acre parcel during their marriage with a mix of inherited cash and farm profits. After Lena titled the land in her name alone, the divorce court treated the parcel as marital property. Each spouse therefore held a present undivided one-half interest that could not be carved into separate physical portions without a court order.
After the last party to a multiple-party account died, the sums belonged to the two surviving POD beneficiaries. Because the statute awarded the funds in equal and undivided shares, neither beneficiary could demand a specific dollar amount until the account was liquidated and divided by agreement or court order.
The creators granted ABC the right to broadcast their comedy programs. When ABC cut twenty-four minutes for commercials, the creators sued for copyright infringement. Under the then-prevailing rule that copyright was indivisible, only the proprietor could sue, forcing the court to decide whether the license transferred ownership or merely permission to use.
In 1969, a group of British writers and performers known as Monty Python entered into a scriptwriters’ agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation. Under the agreement, the group wrote and delivered scripts for thirty-minute programs in the series Monty Python’s Flying Circus. The agreement set out a detailed procedure for script alterations prior to recording. BBC retained final authority, but only minor changes could be made without prior consultation. The agreement provided that the group retained all rights in the script not granted to BBC. Nothing in the agreement entitled BBC to alter a program once it had been recorded, though BBC could license transmission of the recordings in overseas territories. In October 1973, Time-Life Films acquired the right to distribute the Monty Python series in the United States. Time-Life was permitted to edit the programs only for insertion of commercials, applicable censorship or governmental rules, and National Association of Broadcasters and time-segment requirements. In July 1975, ABC agreed with Time-Life to broadcast two ninety-minute specials each comprising three thirty-minute Monty Python programs that had not previously been shown in the United States. Correspondence between BBC and Monty Python’s British representative in September 1975 reflected the assumption that ABC would broadcast each program in its entirety. ABC broadcast the first special on October 3, 1975. Monty Python did not see a tape of the broadcast until late November 1975. The group found that twenty-four minutes of the original ninety minutes had been omitted, producing discontinuity and mutilation. After learning that ABC planned to broadcast the second special on December 26, 1975, the group attempted without success to negotiate a delay so that it could view the program. On December 15, 1975, Monty Python filed suit in the Southern District of New York to enjoin the broadcast and for damages. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lasker found that the editing had impaired the integrity of the work and caused irreparable injury. The judge denied a preliminary injunction because of uncertainty over copyright ownership in the recorded programs, questions whether BBC and Time-Life were indispensable parties, the financial loss ABC would suffer if enjoined a week before the scheduled broadcast, and the plaintiffs’ somewhat disturbing casualness in pursuing the matter. The district court instead required ABC to broadcast a disclaimer during the December 26 special. On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit stayed the disclaimer order and permitted only a limited legend at the beginning of the broadcast. The court heard argument on April 13, 1976, and enjoined any further broadcast of edited Monty Python programs pending decision.
View caseEach spouse owns the whole of every marital asset rather than a distinct physical half. Either spouse may therefore manage or encumber the property subject to the good-faith duty owed the other, and the interest survives even if title appears in only one name.
Supporting sources
The statute awards the funds in equal and undivided shares. No beneficiary acquires a right of survivorship in another beneficiary's share, so each must claim through the estate or by agreement if a co-beneficiary later dies.
Supporting sources
Only the proprietor could place the correct name in the copyright notice or sue for infringement. Transferring less than the entire copyright was treated as a license rather than an assignment, limiting who could enforce the right.
Supporting sources
…recorded by BBC are symbiotic elements of a single production. Therefore, according to ABC, each contributor possesses an undivided ownership of all copyrightable elements in the final work and BBC could thus have licensed use of the script, including editing, written by appellants. The joint work theory as extended in…