Page:Daniel Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc. 7th Cir. 08-1296.djvu/24

 We cannot tell, however, whether the parties  altered this default rule in their agreements. We note that HIT apparently attempted to do so, at least vis-à-vis Learning Curve; it claims  that its licensing agreement with Learning Curve expressly retained the intellectual-property rights in all works that were based upon its copyrights. HIT also claims that the licensing agreement prohibited Learning Curve from granting any third parties copyright protection in derivative works based on HIT’s copyright. As we have  noted, however, the licensing agreement is not in the record. Although HIT’s summary-judgment submission included an affidavit of its vice-president of licensing describing the agreement, the best evidence of the  terms of an agreement is, of course, the agreement itself. See 1002.

The terms of the agreement between Learning Curve and Schrock are even less clear. Whether Learning Curve, as HIT’s licensee, contractually limited Schrock’s right