Recent Cases Address the Copyright Act's Termination Right
Aspiring artists, musicians, writers, and other authors often license or transfer their rights to others before knowing whether their work will be successful. In some cases, an author may wish to capitalize on ensuing success by reclaiming exclusive rights to the work. The Copyright Act permits authors to do so under certain circumstances, providing authors with an opportunity to renegotiate the prior transfer or monetize works that have greatly increased in value in the ensuing years. This column reports on recent decisions that address termination.
July 12, 2022 at 12:00 PM
9 minute read
The Copyright Act provides the owner of a copyright with the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and perform the copyrighted work and allows the owner to transfer those rights to others. Aspiring artists, musicians, writers, and other authors often license or transfer their rights to others before knowing whether their work will be successful. In some cases—particularly those in which the work becomes very successful after the transfer—an author may wish to capitalize on that success by reclaiming her exclusive rights to the work. The Act permits authors to do so under certain circumstances, providing authors with an opportunity to renegotiate the prior transfer or monetize works that have greatly increased in value in the ensuing years. We report here on recent decisions that address the termination right, Horror Inc. v. Miller, 15 F.4th 232 (2d Cir. 2021); Waite v. UMG Recordings, 450 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), and on a recent copyright-termination case involving the just released "Top Gun: Maverick" movie, Yonay v. Paramount Pictures, No. 2:22-cv-03846 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2022).
|The Copyright Act
Under the Copyright Act, the owner of a copyright to a work has, among other rights, the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display a work and to prepare derivative works. 17 U.S.C. §106. Ownership of a copyright "vests initially in the author or authors of the work," except that, in the case of a work for hire, "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author" and "owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright." 17 U.S.C. §201(a), (b). A "work made for hire" includes "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." 17 U.S.C. §101.
Section 203 of the Copyright Act provides that "[i]n the case of any work other than a work made for hire," the grant of a transfer or license or of any right under a copyright "executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978" may be terminated by the author or the author's heirs between 35 and 40 years after the execution of the grant and that "[u]pon the effective date of termination," the granted rights revert to the author or the author's heirs. 17 U.S.C. §203 (a), (b).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
8 minute read'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250