@SteelSound no they can’t. The Authorship is anyway mine, it’s provable, the author’s rights are unalienable by any law and is was specifically noted.
Talking about properties or not, I never worked as a ghostwritter slave and never will do, that’s my point.
You’re right and you’re wrong. In the majority of cases you’re absolutely right, but if two parties have a specific agreement between them then the other party can claim they created the work and the original author isn’t allowed to claim they created the work.
@SpaceStockFootage Thank you. Is that so and where to clarify?
I can be wrong but as far as I knew the author’s rights are unalienable at all. So any signed agreement of that is just illegal juridically under the higher priority of law.
US laws of digital are the misty maze for me and I can miss something. But I cannot imagine logically: how any court can confer a product you’ve made to it’s made by me?
It’s just out of curiosity, not my case, as I said, I’ve sold the rights to use, not the authorship of course.
Check this stuff out from “Copyright basics”…a “buy out” really is like a work for hire. It’s like saying what was once your property is now our property…I’d think at any rate…
“Works made for hire” are an important exception to the general rule for claiming copyright.
When a work is made for hire, the author is not the individual who actually created the work.
Instead, the party that hired the individual is considered the author and the copyright owner of the
work. Whether a work is made for hire is determined by the facts that exist at the time the work is
created. There are two situations in which a work may be made for hire:
1. When the work is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties, or
2. When an individual and the hiring party enter into an express written agreement that the
work is to be considered a “work made for hire” and the work is specially ordered or commissioned
for use as:
• A compilation
• A contribution to a collective work
• A part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
• A translation
• A supplementary work
• An instructional text
• A test
• Answer material for a test
• An atlas
The concept of work made for hire can be complicated and has serious consequences for both the
individual who creates the work and the hiring party who is considered to be the author and copyright
owner of the work. For more information, see Works Made for Hire (Circular 30).
note: Mere ownership of a copy or phonorecord that embodies a work does not give the owner of
that copy or phonorecord the ownership of the copyright in the work.
Transfer of Copyright Ownership
Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, or parts of those rights, can be transferred. The
transfer, however, generally must be made in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed
or the owner’s authorized agent. Transferring a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written
agreement.
You can bequeath a copyright by will or pass it along as personal property under applicable state
laws of intestate succession. It can also be conveyed by operation of law.
You can “record” a transfer of copyright ownership with the Copyright Office through its Office
of Public Records and Repositories. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer
between parties, it does provide certain legal advantages. For more information, see Recordation of
Transfers and Other Documents (Circular 12).
What he said.
What did “he” say? Who is “he”?
That’s you, and what ‘he’ said, is what you said! I was asked to clarify on my statement that you can transfer ownership etc… but thankfully you did it for me.
Indeed…a customer asked if they could “buy out” one of my tunes 2 weeks back and I passed. For starters, the track already is for rent, has been rented many times and i know will continue to “rent” in the future. Not a chance in heck am I going to transfer my property, take it down from markets where buyers want to rent it and risk losing out on a big pay off some day (Usage in a big advertising campaign that generates thousands in performance royalties). My philosophy is simple: My property is my property and if you need it please pay me some rent. There is no place for “buyouts” in micro stock music markets. If customers want something unique for their brand…just commission a work for hire original composition, and pay the author a respectable fee. This is only my opinion. Music producers never are on the same page with these issues. Trying to get music producers on the same page is like trying to herd cats. Music Producers love to undercut each other too and race to the bottom as fast as they can to gain a perceived competitive advantage.
Ladanauskas, I hope you had a sale price you are content with. I do admit it’s a tricky proposition. I am only willing to take the risk at very high sale prices. It also depends on the piece of music and it’s sales history too I suppose. I just am never a fan of transferring ownership of my music property.
Where is me between those “he” and “you”? 
@SteelSound thanks for your point. The aspect of my authorship was specifically noted in agreement as I’ve said already.
Why I’ve decided to do that I’ve explained above: I’ve choosen the most profitious way for that item. What is the sense of formal “ownership” if it doesn’t work? If I had my own Audiojungle with TimMcMorris, SteelSound and Ladanauskas, I bet I’d reject such
offer. 
To say the cost is much higher than it’s being used to take for the producing the unique custom work of the same form for the exact project with strict customer’s conditions, with multiply remakes etc… and with the same giving out the ownership. So from my work’s side it’s high: it took me just a few words to tape on keyboard. Plus evening or two to produce that item years ago. For the customer side – (edited)… anyway it’s acceptable for him if he paid.
Thanks for the link, I didn’t knew that, seeing things changing fast.
But it sill looks for me as a juridical nonsense. Perhaps there is some mess with “authorship” and “copypight” meanings? Could someone explain me how it can be possible? How the law can set the obvious lie as a truth above the true and provable fact? It’s like to officially deny the proven biological parentship when talking only about parents’ rights, which can be alienized and transferred to others by law. Huh, weird.
Full buyout rights? this should be so expensive… or not?
I’m not giving away my rights … all I do it’s all I do and it’s my property. Well, for a couple of million dollars I could have this on consideration… lol … just joking… but I think that when you buy a license, you should have the enough rights to use the track very well … or not?
@MusicLFiles The customer wanted the exclusive uniqueness, which can’t be given by AJ licenses.
Not sure about millions, hehe… But to earn that on Envato a logo sound should be nailed to the tops for a long 