- Copyright is a bundle of rights — to copy, distribute, publicly perform, adapt, and otherwise exploit a work.
- Even a full assignment of copyright does not automatically deal with moral rights — a separate set of rights that belong personally to the individual creator, including the right to be…
When a business buys creative or technical work — a logo, a piece of software, product photography, written content — the contract usually needs to say something about copyright. But "we own it" and "we can use it" are two very different legal outcomes, and the terms licensing vs. assigning copyright get used loosely in everyday conversation even though they describe fundamentally different transactions.
Getting this wrong is one of the most common and costly mistakes in creative and technology contracts. This article explains what each option actually does, why the difference matters long after the ink is dry, and which one your business likely needs.
Two Different Transactions, Not Two Words for the Same Thing
Copyright is a bundle of rights — to copy, distribute, publicly perform, adapt, and otherwise exploit a work. What happens to that bundle depends entirely on which transaction you use.
An assignment transfers ownership
An assignment moves ownership of the copyright (or a defined part of it) from one party to another. Once it's validly assigned, the person who created the work is no longer the owner — the person or business it was assigned to is. Canadian copyright law generally requires an assignment to be in writing and signed by the person giving up the rights; a verbal understanding, or an assumption that it's "obviously" yours now, is not enough to transfer ownership.
A licence grants permission, not ownership
A licence leaves ownership exactly where it was and simply gives someone else permission to use the work in defined ways. The creator remains the owner and can grant other licences to other people, unless the licence says otherwise. A licence can be broad or narrow, limited by purpose, territory, time period, or medium.
Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Licences
Not all licences are created equal:
| Exclusive Licence | Non-Exclusive Licence | |
|---|---|---|
| Can the owner license the same rights to others? | No — only the licensee can use the work in that way | Yes — the owner can license the same work to multiple parties |
| Typical use case | A business commissioning work it wants to control the use of | Stock content, software subscriptions, off-the-shelf licences |
| Ownership of the copyright | Stays with the original creator | Stays with the original creator |
| Relative cost | Usually higher | Usually lower |
An exclusive licence can feel a lot like ownership in practice, since the licensee may be the only one who can use the work. But the underlying copyright still belongs to someone else, which matters if the relationship ends or the licence expires.
Moral Rights: The Wrinkle Both Sides Forget
Even a full assignment of copyright does not automatically deal with moral rights — a separate set of rights that belong personally to the individual creator, including the right to be credited (or not credited) and the right to object to changes that harm their reputation. Moral rights generally cannot be sold or assigned, only waived. If a business needs the freedom to edit, rebrand, or use a work without attribution, the contract should include an explicit waiver of moral rights, separate from the copyright assignment or licence clause itself.
Which Should Your Business Use?
Consider an assignment when:
- You're paying for custom work you want to fully own and control long-term (a logo, custom software, a signature course)
- You plan to resell, sublicense, or use the work as collateral
- You're buying out a departing founder's or contractor's contribution to core business IP
Consider a licence when:
- You need to use existing content or software without needing to own it (stock photography, off-the-shelf software, a musician's track for a promotional video)
- The creator has good reason to keep ownership (an artist licensing a portfolio piece, a consultant reusing a training framework across clients)
- The relationship is ongoing and the terms may need to change over time
Frequently asked questions
If I paid for the work, don't I automatically own the copyright?
Not necessarily. Paying for someone's time and paying for their copyright are different things. Unless a contractor's agreement explicitly assigns copyright to you, Canadian law generally leaves the contractor as the owner, even though you paid for the work and possess the files.
Can a licence later be converted into an assignment?
Yes, but it requires a new agreement. A licence doesn't automatically become ownership over time, no matter how long you've been using the work.
Does an employee's work automatically belong to my business?
Generally, yes — work an employee creates in the course of their employment is typically owned by the employer. That's a different default rule than the one for independent contractors, which is a frequent source of confusion.
What happens if a contract is silent on copyright entirely?
Ownership defaults to whatever the general rule would be for that type of creator (employee vs. contractor), which may not reflect what either side actually intended. That's exactly why the copyright clause shouldn't be left as an afterthought in a services contract.
This is a corporate question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.