The Village People and Copyright Termination

You can't trust the regular media when it comes to copyright stories, they almost always get it wrong.  Case in point, the general reporting of the court's granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in Scorpio Music S.A. v. Victor Willis (Willis was the motorcycle cop in the Village People and interestingly enough, the writer of the English language lyrics to most of the band's biggest hits including "YMCA").

Many of the stories I read reported that Willis somehow recaptured the recordings of these works.  This is not true.  As far as I know, none of the sound recording copyright termination cases have made it to court yet and presumably won't until after 2013.

However in distorting the court's holding, the media missed the case's most significant points.  The holding clarified two important aspects of the termination  provisions of the Copyright Act.  First, the Court deal with the provision "in the case of a grant executed by one author, termination of the grant may be effected by that author".  In other words, if an author executed the original copyright assignment individually then he or she does not need his co-author's approval to terminate the grant.  Reading the statute, the intent is clear but it has been confused with the law surrounding joint authorship – and this is a problem that will be encountered by group members who signed joint publishing agreements and assignments from 1978 on.  However for the individual who might have been a co-writer, the law is explicit and the holding in this case aids in the interpretation. You don’t need anyone’s permission to file your notice of termination.

Second, the case clarifies the point that upon termination, the author becomes an owner of an undivided interest in the copyright equal to the amount he originally transferred – irregardless of whatever royalty percentage he might have received pursuant to the contract.  Again this is explicit in the Statute but it is comforting to see it set out and explained by the court.

Admittedly, the facts of the Willis case are unique but then all cases have their own unique set of facts.  I think that the cases are going to begin to provide more and more guidance to the murky area of copyright terminations as we go along and they are each  fascinating in their own way.

Termination of Assignments of Sound Recording Copyrights

A few weeks ago I wrote an article for Billboard Magazine about the Copyright Office amending the rules regarding termination of assignments of copyright. The editor wisely omitted the last sentence where I mused about whether the Copyright Office would ever take a stand on the issue of artists attempting to terminate their assignments of sound recording copyrights.

Now the New York Times has addressed the issue in an August 15 article “Record Industry Braces for Artist Battles Over Song Rights”. The article is a great primer on this complex and controversial matter. While it is clear that one of the purposes of the Copyright Act of 1976 was to give songwriters and other authors the right to recapture their work after 35 years, it is not clear whether or not the same rights apply to recording artists. This is because the termination provision specifically excludes “works made for hire” and nearly every recording contract from the 1970s on refers to sound recordings a “works made for hire”. The problem for the record companies is that the Copyright Act also has a very specific definition of “works made for hire” and sound recordings are not part of that definition. Further most record contracts go to great lengths to state that the artist is an independent contractor and not an employee of the record company, which further damages the work made for hire argument.

The New York Times article also addresses some of the confusing side issues in this debate. For example, how will the law address other “authors” of a sound recording including producers and engineers? How will the law affect artists who sign contracts in other countries subject to different laws (e.g. every major band from England)?

Although there is much discussion and debate on the issue, the battle will properly commence until January 1, 2013 when works created on or after January 1, 1978 become eligible for termination. Things are going to get very interesting. I would urge any recording artist who executed an agreement during the 1970’s to have that contract reviewed by a lawyer asap.

new article in Billboard on termination of copyright grants

I have a small piece in the Legal Matters section of the July 30, 2011 issue of Billboard entitled "Confusion Emerges Over the right to terminate U.S. Copyright Grants". It's fairly arcane but could be beneficial to those who assigned copyrights after 1978 pursuant to agreements dated before January 1, 1978.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an internet link to the article but left me know if you're interested in reading the article.