3 ms·

I used "author" in the technical sense, which means all creators of copyrighted works. The termination is far enough in the future that only now are some promi

by jxdxbx 14y ago

I used "author" in the technical sense, which means all creators of copyrighted works. The termination is far enough in the future that only now are some prominent musicians taking advantage of it, but there have been some stories recently. You have to actively take advantage of the law, also, it's not automatic. And there are often lawsuits. None of this applies to "works made for hire," for which the "author" is for example a company. If I hire you to write a song you never were the copyright owner to begin with. This is a complex area and there's a lot of litigation about the distinction between works for hire and works that are written and then transferred or licensed. I don't know the details of how it works with canceling my hypothetical "no termination only" billion dollar contract. I know copyright law but I haven't studied this area specifically. For the most part contracts pay the author a modest sum that covers a license or a transfer for a modest number of years. In fact a 20 year license should cost about as much as a perpetual license given that most works make all the money they're ever going to make long before that. So a termination under those circumstances doesn't involve any unjust enrichment to the author. And there can be no legally relevant "damages" that result from an author taking advantage of a law that has been in place for decades--it's your responsibility as a media company to know about these things, not the job of an author to decline to take advantage of his legal rights for your sake.

cpressey 14y ago
It's interesting that you can give away your copyright to another entity (if it's a "work made for hire") but you can't give up your copyright completely to place a work irrevocably into the public domain. What if I create a legal entity, have it hire me to make a work, and then dissolve the entity? (That's mostly rhetorical; I expect the answer, if it exists, is messy.) EDIT: answering my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
- jxdxbx 14y ago
  There's a difference. You never owned the work to begin with in a work made for hire. Example: a New York Times reporter never owns the copyright to his articles--they are owned by the NY Times from the beginning. There is no transfer. The article is in a sense written "by" the Times. But if I write an article and then sell all the rights to the Times later, I can claw it back in a few decades. The arguments are over what happens when it's not so clear. Like what if the Times contracts with an independent freelancer specifically to write an article?

by jxdxbx 14y ago

cpressey 14y ago

It's interesting that you can give away your copyright to another entity (if it's a "work made for hire") but you can't give up your copyright completely to place a work irrevocably into the public domain. What if I create a legal entity, have it hire me to make a work, and then dissolve the entity? (That's mostly rhetorical; I expect the answer, if it exists, is messy.) EDIT: answering my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

jxdxbx 14y ago
There's a difference. You never owned the work to begin with in a work made for hire. Example: a New York Times reporter never owns the copyright to his articles--they are owned by the NY Times from the beginning. There is no transfer. The article is in a sense written "by" the Times. But if I write an article and then sell all the rights to the Times later, I can claw it back in a few decades. The arguments are over what happens when it's not so clear. Like what if the Times contracts with an independent freelancer specifically to write an article?