Sound Recordings: Termination of Assignments and Works Made For Hire

Attorney Wallace Collins wrote a great opinion piece in a recent issue of Billboard about the looming effect of Section 203 of the Copyright Act. This “obscure” section of the law recognizes an author’s right to terminate an assignment of copyright 35 years after the initial grant. The reason that it has been obscure up until now is that it won’t have an effect until 2013. The 1976 Copyright Act did not become law until January 1, 1978. Of course songwriters have been exploring termination issues with respect to old copyrights under the revised Section 204 (which applies to grants of copyright completed prior to January 1, 1978) for some time now.

The termination of assignments with respect to music publishing agreements will no doubt be handled in a fairly straight-forward manner, again, because publishers are used to creating fairly sophisticated arrangements with respect to the termination of pre-1978 copyrights. What promises to be more complex is the application of Section 203 to sound recordings. Anyone who has ever read a major label recording agreement (or a recording agreement modeled on a major label agreement) will recall that there is language in the agreement that states that every recording created under the agreement shall be deemed a “work made for hire.” Most people seem to know that a work made for hire is a work in which the “employer” is deemed to be the author of the work for copyright purposes and the original author has no right to ever terminate the assignment of the work. However, it is less well known that under the copyright act, the “work made for hire” doctrine applies to a limited number of works, and sound recordings are not part of this group. (Although for a brief period of time about a decade ago the recording industry managed to amend the Copyright Act to include sound recordings under this definition.) In other words, presumably, just because a record contract says that masters created under the deal are deemed works made for hire, this does not make it so.

The somewhat uncomfortable part is that none of this has been tested in Court yet, and won’t be tested for several years.

Section 203 provides that the author shall send a Notice of Termination “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.”

All of this seems extremely civilized, and as stated above, there is some precedent for this under the industry custom with respect to copyright in musical compositions. However, it is unclear how the record companies will react given their stated position that master recordings are works made for hire.

It is also unclear how the concept of derivative works and joint authorship will apply. For example, producers might begin to assert an authorship right in the sound recording at issue. Also, as many commentators have noted, U.S. law will not apply to exploitation of the recording outside of the United States.

Nobody really knows how this will all play out, but it will be an interesting time to practice law in the music business.