Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Contracts Assigning Copyright From 1978 Could Be Null And Void In 2013

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    22,189

    Default Contracts Assigning Copyright From 1978 Could Be Null And Void In 2013

    Well now, here's a thing.

    Section 203 of the 1978 US Copyright Act allows authors to cut away any contract after 35 years.

    Which is in 2013. Funny how that suddenly caught up with us?

    That doesn't affect contracts signed before then. It also doesn't (yet) affect any contracts signed after that, including those that amend the original deal. Such as, say, all those contracts over the past couple of decades that comic creators signed just to clarify coporate ownership of their work. It also has no bearing on trademark law either. Those eligible will have five years to make a claim.

    But if nothing else, this probably means that Alan Moore could make a claim on Watchmen based on that 1985 contract in about six years...

    Get reading.
    203 . Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author3

    (a) Conditions for Termination. ? In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

    (1) In the case of a grant executed by one author, termination of the grant may be effected by that author or, if the author is dead, by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's termination interest. In the case of a grant executed by two or more authors of a joint work, termination of the grant may be effected by a majority of the authors who executed it; if any of such authors is dead, the termination interest of any such author may be exercised as a unit by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's interest.

    (2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and may be exercised, as follows:

    (A) The widow or widower owns the author's entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author's interest.

    (B) The author's surviving children, and the surviving children of any dead child of the author, own the author's entire termination interest unless there is a widow or widower, in which case the ownership of one-half of the author's interest is divided among them.

    (C) The rights of the author's children and grandchildren are in all cases divided among them and exercised on a per stirpes basis according to the number of such author's children represented; the share of the children of a dead child in a termination interest can be exercised only by the action of a majority of them.

    (D) In the event that the author's widow or widower, children, and grandchildren are not living, the author's executor, administrator, personal representative, or trustee shall own the author's entire termination interest.

    (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

    (4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing, signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title.

    (A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.

    (B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

    (5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

    (b) Effect of Termination. ? Upon the effective date of termination, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the author, authors, and other persons owning termination interests under clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a), including those owners who did not join in signing the notice of termination under clause (4) of subsection (a), but with the following limitations:

    (1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

    (2) The future rights that will revert upon termination of the grant become vested on the date the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of subsection (a). The rights vest in the author, authors, and other persons named in, and in the proportionate shares provided by, clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a).

    (3) Subject to the provisions of clause (4) of this subsection, a further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is signed by the same number and proportion of the owners, in whom the right has vested under clause (2) of this subsection, as are required to terminate the grant under clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a). Such further grant or agreement is effective with respect to all of the persons in whom the right it covers has vested under clause (2) of this subsection, including those who did not join in signing it. If any person dies after rights under a terminated grant have vested in him or her, that person's legal representatives, legatees, or heirs at law represent him or her for purposes of this clause.

    (4) A further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effective date of the termination. As an exception, however, an agreement for such a further grant may be made between the persons provided by clause (3) of this subsection and the original grantee or such grantee's successor in title, after the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of subsection (a).

    (5) Termination of a grant under this section affects only those rights covered by the grants that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.

    (6) Unless and until termination is effected under this section, the grant, if it does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the term of copyright provided by this title.



  2. #2
    King of Cool Joe Kalicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Joliet, IL
    Posts
    21,690

    Default

    There is no way that wouldn't be fought and dismissed in court, especially if later clarifying contracts were signed.

  3. #3
    Bleeding Cool
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    12,513

    Default

    The US Copyright Act of 1978 has nothing to do with contracts, and it's provisions are already in play and have been for quite a while. They are, in fact, the center point of some of the Superman court cases.

  4. #4
    downlikecharlie
    Guest

    Default

    Alright guys, we solved sexism and homophobia yesterday. Today, U.S. Copyright! Who do we boycott first?

  5. #5
    Bleeding Cool
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    12,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downlikecharlie View Post
    Alright guys, we solved sexism and homophobia yesterday. Today, U.S. Copyright! Who do we boycott first?
    It's probably safest to start with Rich, at least where his "understanding" of law is concerned.

  6. #6
    Anti-Moderator _OM_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    15,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comicsfan101 View Post
    The US Copyright Act of 1978 has nothing to do with contracts, and it's provisions are already in play and have been for quite a while. They are, in fact, the center point of some of the Superman court cases.
    ...Thank you for pointing that out, CF. In fact, my carpal tunnels thank you for saving them at least this much strain while waiting for the gabapentin to take effect
    -------

  7. #7

    Default

    It's only for works "other than work for hire..." He would likely lose, even though Moore disputes it was work for hire.
    Last edited by trapyoung; 11-30-2012 at 12:40 PM.

  8. #8
    Bleeding Cool
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    12,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _OM_ View Post
    ...Thank you for pointing that out, CF. In fact, my carpal tunnels thank you for saving them at least this much strain while waiting for the gabapentin to take effect
    I figured you'd come along, but thought I'd offer the summary. Kind of funny how many articles BC has run featuring this very law, and then Rich posts this nonsense.

  9. #9
    Anti-Moderator _OM_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    15,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comicsfan101 View Post
    It's probably safest to start with Rich, at least where his "understanding" of law is concerned.
    ...I give Rich quite a bit of slack where US law is concerned. Being a resident of that Little Island Empire across the Big Pond, there are differences between US law and The Queen's Rule that one really has to be trained in *both* legal systems as well as international laws/agreements/treaties to fully understand just what the fucking is going on, who gets fucked, how hard, how long, and whether or not they get to keep the original art *and* get a passionate thank-you kiss along with the cab fare home, breakfast not a guaranteed option.

    CIP: Rich may not fully understand even the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, but I, for all my understanding of British laws governing the right to bear arms of any sort, am still conbefuddled as to whether or not a Klingon bat'leth or even a Swiss Navy Knife are illegal to carry, much less own.
    -------

  10. #10
    Zen Master of Cool The Valeyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    804

    Default

    Pfft! Like Moore wants Watchmen anymore. There's still plenty of public domain characters to pilfer.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •