Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of "implied license as an implied provision in the existing contract":
<quote section="FN1"> The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal law. In an opinion remarkable for its lucidity, we reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiff was "master of his claim" and could opt to pursue the copyright infringement action instead of suing on the contract. Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 817 F.2d 72, 73 (9th Cir.1987). We recognized that the issue on remand would be whether Effects had transferred to Cohen the right to use the footage. Id. at 73 & n. 1, 74. </quote> The court ruled for Cohen after finding exactly such an implied license provision in the contract, and hence no copyright infringement; Effects should have sued for breach of contract (Cohen didn't pay the full agreed price). Cheers, - Michael
