For simple transfers without intellectual property, the NIH recommends a simple matching agreement. For materials that can be patented or for which increased protection is desired, the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement (UBMTA) can be used. Many U.S. educational institutions have signed the UBMTA Masteragrement.  AUTM (formerly the Association of University Technology Managers) serves as a repository for UBMTA`s original master`s contracts and keeps the list of signatories.  UBMTA signatories must only sign a letter of execution containing the details of each transfer, since they have already agreed to all the terms of the master contract. (a) Contracting parties may agree to transfer the rights and obligations of the transferor under the contract with the person who remains a party to this contract (“the other party”) to another person (the “ceding” person); Copyright transfer agreements have become commonplace in publishing under the Copyright Act of 1976 in the United States and similar laws in other countries in the publishing sector, redefining copyright from the date of birth (instead of publication) of a work.  This required publishers to acquire copyright from the author to sell or access the works, and written statements signed by the rights holder were necessary for the transfer of copyright to be considered valid.   In 2017, the 9th Court of Appeal of Johnson v. Storix confirmed a transfer of copyright without a written assignment.  In this case, the author sold the Anthony Johnson software as an individual contractor and built his business in 2003 under the title Storix, Inc.
The court upheld a jury decision that Johnson transferred the copyright to the company on the basis of an annual report he wrote and signed that he had transferred “all the assets” of his individual company. The jury rejected Johnson`s assertion that he only wanted to transfer the license to sell the software and also decided that Johnson would become a loan plant after the company was founded, thereby losing all rights to his spin-off works. This is the first case in which a document that is not itself a contract or agreement and does not contain a reference to copyright has been considered a “reference or a mention” of copyright transmission and where, for the first time, a single owner of a company has been characterized as embedded for copyright purposes. [doubtful – discuss] This serves as a lesson that a “letter” required by copyright law does not necessarily have to be “clear” but may contain ambiguous language that can be interpreted by dealing with the alleged transaction from third parties. b) The transfer of a contract is subject to the agreement of the other party. This consent may be given in advance or by the taker and ceding it at the time of the transfer. If the other party has agreed in advance, the transfer of the contract comes into effect if the other party provides a transfer notification or if the other party recognizes it. In the field of academic publishing, copyright transfer contracts generally do not involve remuneration or royalties.  These agreements are a key element of subscription academic publication and are intended to facilitate the processing of copyright in pure print publishing.  In the era of electronic communications, the benefits of copyright transfer contracts have been called into question and, although they remain the norm, open licenses as used in open access publications have been established as alternatives.  Some commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, exploit “nominal copyrights” when they require the transfer of full and exclusive rights from authors to the publisher for OA articles, while copyright remains in the name of authors.  The assumption that this practice is a precondition for publication is misleading, as even works that are publicly available can be redirected, printed and disseminated by publishers.