Selling vs licensing a character: what's the legal difference?
Selling a character outright is an assignment: the rights leave you and belong to the buyer. Licensing is permission: you keep the rights and let someone use them, inside limits you agree on. An exclusive licence sits between the two. You still own the character, but for the agreed scope and term you promise not to use it yourself or license anyone else, and US law treats that as a transfer of ownership.
The practical difference comes down to two questions. After the deal, can you still use the character? And does the deal have to be in writing? Under US law, an assignment and an exclusive licence are only valid with a signed writing; a non-exclusive licence isn't. Taiwan's Copyright Act takes a different route: whatever the contract doesn't clearly give away is presumed not given. Either way, the creator who writes it down loses fewer arguments. This is general information, not legal advice.
Three deals, side by side
| Assignment (selling) | Exclusive licence | Non-exclusive licence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owns the rights afterwards | The buyer | You, but the licensee holds the exclusive right within the scope | You |
| Can you keep using the character | Not unless you keep a licence back | Not within the licensed scope and term | Yes |
| Can you license others | No | Not within the scope | Yes, as many as you like |
| Ends after a term | Usually no | Usually yes, after the agreed term | Usually yes |
| Needs a signed writing in the US | Yes | Yes | No, but write it anyway |
"Scope" is what makes licences flexible. A licence can be limited by time (three years), territory (worldwide or Japan only), and use (merchandise, a game, an audio-visual release). An exclusive licence for "plush toys in Japan for three years" leaves you free to license the same character for a webcomic in Taiwan tomorrow.
What US law says
Everything below is from Title 17 of the US Code as posted on copyright.gov (the Copyright Office notes the text is current through the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010; checked November 7, 2026).
An exclusive licence counts as a transfer. The definitions in 17 U.S.C. § 101 say a "transfer of copyright ownership" is "an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance... whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license." An exclusive licence limited to three years in one country is still a transfer of ownership for that slice.
Rights can be split. Under § 201(d), ownership "may be transferred in whole or in part", and "any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright... may be transferred... and owned separately." So you can sell the merchandising right and keep the rest.
Transfers need a signed writing. § 204(a): "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed." Because of § 101, that covers assignments and exclusive licences. It doesn't cover a non-exclusive licence.
The exclusive licensee can sue. § 501(b) gives "the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right" the right to bring an infringement action (subject to the registration requirement in § 411). An exclusive licensee is the owner of that exclusive right, so they can enforce it. A non-exclusive licensee isn't, so they can't.
Recording and conflicts. Under § 205, a transfer can be recorded with the Copyright Office. If the same rights are transferred twice, § 205(d) sets out which one wins, and recording matters. Under § 205(e), a non-exclusive licence in writing and signed can prevail over a later transfer if it was taken before that transfer was executed, or in good faith before it was recorded and without notice of it. In plain terms: a written non-exclusive licence can survive a later sale of the character.
Signing a character deal under US law covers the other US formalities a character sale runs into: electronic signatures, the author's termination right, and right of publicity.
What Taiwan law says
Taiwan's Copyright Act (as amended May 4, 2022, on the national law database; checked November 7, 2026) handles the same three deals in two articles.
Article 36: assignment. Article 36 says economic rights may be assigned in whole or in part, the assignee holds them within the scope assigned, and the scope follows what the parties agreed. Then the important line: any part where the agreement is unclear is presumed not assigned. A vague "the character is yours" leaves the buyer arguing about everything it didn't name.
Article 37: licensing. Article 37 says the territory, time, content and method of a licence follow the agreement, and any unclear part is presumed not licensed. It also says:
- An existing licence isn't affected if the owner later assigns the rights or licenses again (para. 2). That lines up with the US rule above: a buyer takes the character subject to licences already granted.
- A non-exclusive licensee can't sublicense without the owner's consent (para. 3).
- An exclusive licensee may exercise the rights as if they were the owner within the licensed scope, and may sue in their own name, while the owner may not exercise the rights within that scope (para. 4).
Article 21: what never moves. Under Article 21, moral rights belong exclusively to the author and can't be assigned or inherited. Selling a character in Taiwan moves the economic rights. Your moral rights as author stay with you.
Articles 36 and 37 themselves don't spell out a writing requirement the way § 204(a) does. Their presumptions work the same way in practice, though: the party who needs to prove a right was granted needs the words that grant it.
The AI layer
There's a question underneath all of this: what is there to sell? When the US Copyright Office released Part 2 of its AI report (January 29, 2025), it said that "outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements", and that this does not come from "the mere provision of prompts". Taiwan's IP Office said much the same in email ruling 1141017b (October 17, 2025): content made with actual human creative input can be protected, and content the AI completed on its own can't. A character pack is usually a mix. How much do I have to do for an AI work to be protected? goes through both sources in more detail.
For a deal, this means two things. First, describe what you're handing over (the files, the spec, the name) and not just "the copyright", because some of it may carry none. Second, the platform templates handle unprotectable elements by having the deal still work as a delivery of files plus the seller's promise to stop exploiting the character.
How the three deals run on OpenStela
We offer all three as contract templates. The holder of a character picks one as the listing mode, and a buyer can only open a deal of that type. Here's what each one does on the platform, as built:
- Assignment. The whole character pack moves to the buyer's account: spec, reference and source images, delivery packs, and the works bound only to this character. The registry number (the AVL ID) goes with it, and the transfer is added to the character's public history. The template states that both parties intend the signed text to be the § 204(a) writing.
- Exclusive licence. You keep the character and its registry number. The licensee gets a copy of the spec, the reference set and the delivery packs, with no registry number of its own. Your source images, candidates and work files stay with you. While the exclusive licence is recorded, the platform won't open another deal on that character, and the listing goes back to display only.
- Non-exclusive licence. Same delivered copy, no exclusivity mark. You can keep selling or licensing the character. At signing, the platform fills in how many other non-exclusive licences are already in force, so the licensee signs knowing they aren't the only one.
In every case, both parties sign the SHA-256 of the exact contract text. The buyer pays the seller directly, because the platform never holds the money. The seller confirms payment, the platform runs the transfer and checks every file against the manifest frozen at signing, and the buyer has an acceptance window (72 hours by default). The deal fee is 5% with a $15 minimum, or a $3 minimum for non-exclusive licences, paid by the seller only when a deal reaches the transfer step (pricing). What actually moves when you sell a character goes through the file-level detail, and the selling page covers the whole flow. For what the platform's own terms say about deals, read the current Terms of Service directly.
What the platform doesn't do: it isn't a party to your contract, it doesn't decide whether the seller had the rights to sell, and a registry record isn't proof of title. It's a dated, verifiable record of what was signed, what moved, and when.
Picking one
Ask yourself these, in order:
- Do I want to keep using this character? If yes, don't assign. License it.
- Does the buyer need to be the only one? A studio building a game around the character usually does: exclusive licence, or assignment. A VTuber borrowing a character for a single stream usually doesn't: non-exclusive.
- How long, where, and for what? If you can answer all three, it's a licence. If the answer is "forever, everywhere, everything", it's closer to an assignment, so price it that way.
- Who can enforce it? If the buyer needs to go after copycats themselves, they need an exclusive right. In the US and Taiwan, a non-exclusive licensee can't sue in their own name.
- Is it written and signed? For an assignment or exclusive licence, the US requires it. For everything else it's still the cheapest insurance you can buy.
賣斷和授權角色，法律上差在哪？
賣斷一隻角色，法律上叫「讓與」：權利離開你，變成買方的。授權則是「同意別人用」：權利還在你身上，對方只能在你們約定的範圍內利用。專屬授權夾在兩者中間：角色還是你的，但在約定的範圍與期間內，你承諾自己不用、也不再授權給別人；在美國法下，這甚至被當成一種所有權移轉。
實際上差別落在兩個問題：交易完成之後，你自己還能不能繼續用這隻角色？這筆交易一定要寫成書面嗎？美國法要求讓與和專屬授權都要有經權利人簽署的書面，非專屬授權則不用。台灣著作權法走的是另一條路：契約沒寫清楚的部分，推定為沒有讓與、沒有授權。不管是哪一邊，把話寫下來的那一方，日後吵架都比較少輸。本文為一般資訊，不是個案法律意見。
三種交易，放在一起看
| 讓與（賣斷） | 專屬授權 | 非專屬授權 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 交易後權利在誰身上 | 買方 | 還是你，但範圍內的專屬權利由被授權人行使 | 你 |
| 你還能不能繼續用 | 不能，除非另外約定授權回來 | 在授權範圍與期間內不能 | 能 |
| 你還能不能授權別人 | 不能 | 範圍內不能 | 能，要授權幾個都可以 |
| 會不會到期 | 通常不會 | 通常會，期滿結束 | 通常會 |
| 美國法是否要求簽署的書面 | 要 | 要 | 不要，但還是寫下來 |
授權之所以有彈性，靠的是「範圍」。一份授權可以限定期間（三年）、地域（全球，或只限日本）、利用方式（周邊商品、遊戲、影音發行）。假設你把角色以「日本地區、三年、絨毛娃娃」專屬授權給一家周邊廠商，明天你還是可以把同一隻角色授權給台灣的條漫平台連載。讓與就沒有這些切口，除非你在契約裡刻意切出來。
台灣法怎麼說
以下依全國法規資料庫的著作權法（最新修正日期 2022 年 5 月 4 日；2026 年 11 月 7 日查閱）。
第 36 條：讓與。第 36 條規定：「著作財產權得全部或部分讓與他人或與他人共有。著作財產權之受讓人，在其受讓範圍內，取得著作財產權。著作財產權讓與之範圍依當事人之約定；其約定不明之部分，推定為未讓與。」
最後那一句最要緊。很多台灣創作者的角色買賣是在 LINE 或 Discord 上談的，一句「角色就給你了」、匯款、丟一個雲端資料夾。這樣的約定，對「周邊能不能做」「能不能拿去訓練模型」「能不能改名重新發表」都沒寫，而沒寫的部分，法律推定為沒有讓與。
第 37 條：授權。第 37 條第 1 項規定，授權利用的地域、時間、內容、利用方法或其他事項，依當事人約定；約定不明的部分，推定為未授權。同條還有三項跟角色交易直接相關：
- 第 2 項：「前項授權不因著作財產權人嗣後將其著作財產權讓與或再為授權而受影響。」也就是說，你先授權給 A、後來把角色賣給 B，A 的授權還在。
- 第 3 項：非專屬授權的被授權人，沒有著作財產權人同意，不得再授權給第三人。
- 第 4 項：「專屬授權之被授權人在被授權範圍內，得以著作財產權人之地位行使權利，並得以自己名義為訴訟上之行為。著作財產權人在專屬授權範圍內，不得行使權利。」
第 4 項後半句就是「專屬」在法律上的意思：在那個範圍內，連你自己都被鎖在門外。很多創作者以為專屬授權只是「不再授權給別人」，其實自己也不能用。
第 21 條：永遠不會移轉的部分。第 21 條規定：「著作人格權專屬於著作人本身，不得讓與或繼承。」賣斷角色移轉的是著作財產權；你身為著作人的姓名表示權、同一性保持權等人格權，不會跟著走。
第 36、37 條條文本身沒有像美國 §204(a) 那樣寫明「必須書面」。但兩條的「約定不明推定為未讓與／未授權」在實務上效果相近：要主張自己拿到了某項權利的一方，得拿得出寫著那項權利的文字。
美國法怎麼說
如果買方在美國，或契約約定美國法，要看美國著作權法（17 U.S.C.）。以下依 copyright.gov 刊載的條文（著作權局標註內容更新至 2010 年 Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act；2026 年 11 月 7 日查閱）。
專屬授權算移轉。§101 的定義：「著作權所有權之移轉」包括讓與、抵押、專屬授權或其他讓渡，「不論是否限於一定期間或地域」，但不包括非專屬授權。所以即使是「三年、只限一個國家」的專屬授權，在那一塊範圍內也是所有權移轉。
權利可以拆開賣。§201(d) 規定著作權可以全部或一部移轉，著作權包含的各項專有權利也可以分別移轉、分別持有。你可以只賣商品化的權利，其他留著。
移轉要有簽署的書面。§204(a) 規定，著作權所有權的移轉（法律效果所生者除外），非以書面作成讓渡文件或移轉備忘、並經所移轉權利的所有人簽署，不生效力。配合 §101，這條涵蓋讓與與專屬授權，不涵蓋非專屬授權。
專屬被授權人可以自己告。§501(b) 規定，著作權下某項專有權利的法律上或實質上所有人，得就該權利受侵害提起訴訟（須符合 §411 的登記要件）。專屬被授權人是那項專有權利的所有人，可以自己出面；非專屬被授權人不是，不行。這和台灣第 37 條第 4 項的結論一致。
登錄與衝突。依 §205，移轉可以向著作權局辦理登錄。同一權利被移轉兩次時，§205(d) 決定誰優先，有沒有登錄是關鍵。§205(e) 則規定，經書面簽署的非專屬授權，若在移轉簽訂之前取得，或在移轉登錄前善意、不知情地取得，可以優先於該移轉。白話說：寫成書面的非專屬授權，可以在角色後來被賣掉之後繼續存在，跟台灣第 37 條第 2 項的方向相同。
美國角色交易還會碰到的其他形式要件（電子簽章、作者的終止權、肖像公開權），在〈在美國法下簽一份角色交易〉裡有逐項說明。
AI 這一層
這一切底下還有一個問題：到底有什麼可以賣？美國著作權局在 2025 年 1 月 29 日發布 AI 報告第二部分時說，生成式 AI 的產出「only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements」才受著作權保護，而且這不是「the mere provision of prompts」就能做到的。台灣智慧局在電子郵件 1141017b（2025 年 10 月 17 日）也表示：把 AI 當輔助工具、有人類實際創意投入的成果，仍可受保護；完全由 AI 演算完成、沒有人類實際創意投入的內容，無法享有著作權。一個角色包通常是混合的：你寫的規格、你挑選與修改的部分有人的貢獻，部分參考圖可能是直接生成的。兩份來源的細節見〈AI 作品要做到多少才受保護？〉。
放到交易裡，代表兩件事。第一，契約要寫清楚交付的是什麼（檔案、規格、名稱），不要只寫「著作權」，因為其中一部分可能根本沒有著作權。第二，平台的契約範本對「不受保護的元素」的處理是：那一部分仍作為檔案交付，加上賣方承諾不再繼續利用該角色。
三種交易在 OpenStela 上怎麼跑
我們把三種交易都做成契約範本。角色持有人在刊登時選一種模式（出售、專屬授權、非專屬授權，或只展示），買方只能開那一種交易。以下是平台實際的做法：
- 讓與。整個角色包搬到買方帳號：規格、參考圖與原圖、各平台配送包，以及只綁這隻角色的作品。登記編號（AVL 編號）跟著角色走，這次移轉會加進角色的公開履歷。範本明文寫明雙方意在讓簽署的文本構成 §204(a) 所稱的書面。
- 專屬授權。角色和登記編號都留在你這裡。被授權人拿到的是一份副本：規格、參考圖集、配送包，副本本身沒有登記編號、也不能另發。你的原圖、候選圖、作品檔案不會交出去。專屬授權登記在案期間，平台不會再讓這隻角色開新交易，刊登也退回只展示。
- 非專屬授權。交付內容相同，但不標記專屬。你可以繼續賣、繼續授權。簽署時，平台會把這隻角色「目前有幾份生效中的非專屬授權」填進契約並鎖定，被授權人簽的是「知道自己不是唯一一個」的版本。
不論哪一種，雙方簽的都是契約全文的 SHA-256 指紋。錢由買方直接付給賣方，平台不經手價金；賣方確認收款後，平台才執行移轉，並把每個檔案和簽署當下凍結的清單逐一比對，之後買方有一段驗收期（預設 72 小時）。成交手續費 5%、最低 US$15（非專屬授權最低 US$3），只在交易走到移轉那一步時向賣方收（見價格）。檔案層面的細節在〈賣掉一隻角色，實際移轉了什麼〉，整個流程在出售頁。平台條款對交易怎麼規定，請直接看現行的服務條款。
平台不做的事：它不是你們契約的當事人，不判斷賣方有沒有權利賣，登記紀錄也不是權狀。它是一份可查驗的時間紀錄，記下簽了什麼、搬了什麼、在什麼時候。
怎麼選
依序問自己：
- 我之後還想用這隻角色嗎？想，就不要讓與，改用授權。
- 對方需要是唯一一個嗎？要拿角色做一款遊戲的工作室通常需要，選專屬授權或讓與；只是借角色開一場實況的 VTuber 通常不需要，非專屬就夠。
- 多久、哪裡、做什麼？三個都答得出來，就是授權。如果答案是「永久、全世界、什麼都可以」，那已經接近讓與，價錢也要照讓與來開。
- 誰要出面維權？如果買方要自己去處理盜用的人，他需要專屬的權利。在台灣和美國，非專屬被授權人都不能以自己名義起訴。
- 有沒有寫成書面、雙方簽名？讓與和專屬授權，美國法直接要求；其他情形，這也是最便宜的保險。
Questions常見問題
Is an exclusive licence just a sale with an end date?專屬授權是不是就是「有期限的賣斷」？
Close, but not the same. Under 17 U.S.C. § 101 it counts as a transfer of ownership, and the licensee can sue over that right. But it's limited by scope and term, you remain the owner outside them, and in Taiwan it's governed by the licensing rules in Article 37, not the assignment rules in Article 36. On OpenStela the registry number stays with you.
接近，但不一樣。在美國 §101 下它算所有權移轉，被授權人可以就那項權利起訴。但它受範圍與期間限制，範圍外你仍是權利人；在台灣，它適用的是第 37 條的授權規定，不是第 36 條的讓與規定。在 OpenStela 上，登記編號也留在你身上。
Can I sell a character I've already licensed to other people?已經授權給別人的角色，還能賣嗎？
Usually yes, but the buyer takes it subject to those licences. Taiwan's Article 37(2) says an existing licence isn't affected by a later assignment, and US § 205(e) lets a signed, written non-exclusive licence prevail over a later transfer in the situations it describes. Tell the buyer. On OpenStela, an exclusive licence that's in force blocks a sale of that character. Non-exclusive licences don't, and the template has a section for disclosing them.
通常可以，但買方是連同那些授權一起買下。台灣第 37 條第 2 項規定既有授權不因之後的讓與而受影響；美國 §205(e) 在條文描述的情形下，讓書面簽署的非專屬授權優先於之後的移轉。要先告訴買方。在 OpenStela 上，生效中的專屬授權會擋下這隻角色的出售；非專屬授權不會擋，讓與範本另有一節專門揭露它們。
We agreed the deal in DMs. Is that enough?我們在私訊裡談好了，這樣夠嗎？
For a non-exclusive licence, US law doesn't require a writing, though you'll still want proof of what was agreed. For an assignment or exclusive licence, § 204(a) requires a writing signed by the owner, and whether a chat message counts is something you'd be arguing about years later. In Taiwan, whatever the messages don't clearly cover is presumed not assigned or not licensed. Put it in one signed document.
非專屬授權，美國法不要求書面，但你還是需要證明談了什麼。讓與或專屬授權，§204(a) 要求經權利人簽署的書面，一則聊天訊息算不算，會是好幾年後才吵的事。在台灣，訊息裡沒寫清楚的部分，推定為未讓與、未授權。整理成一份雙方簽名的文件吧。
Does selling the character also sell my name as its creator?賣斷角色，會連我「作者」的名義一起賣掉嗎？
In Taiwan, no. Article 21 says moral rights belong to the author and can't be assigned, so a sale moves the economic rights only. US law has very few moral rights to begin with; the US deals post covers the one narrow exception. On OpenStela, a character's registration history keeps the earlier records, and a transfer is appended to it rather than replacing it.
在台灣不會。第 21 條規定著作人格權專屬於著作人本身、不得讓與，賣斷移轉的只有著作財產權。美國法本來就幾乎沒有著作人格權，唯一的狹窄例外在〈在美國法下簽一份角色交易〉有說明。在 OpenStela 上，角色的登記履歷保留先前的紀錄，移轉是追加上去的，不會覆蓋。