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
© 2025 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
- 1X Faces Intense Scrutiny as EU Investigation Races to Conclusion & Looming Court Battle
- 2'Nation is in Trouble': NY Lawmakers Advance Bill to Set Parameters for Shielding Juror IDs in Criminal Matters
- 3Margolis Edelstein Broadens Leadership With New Co-Managing Partner
- 4Menendez Asks US Judge for Bond Pending Appeal of Criminal Conviction
- 5Onit Acquires Case and Matter Management Software Provider Legal Files Software
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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