Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright Grantees Served Sour Grapes in Steinbeck Dispute
In 1976 and again in 1998, Congress extended subsisting copyrights, by 19 and 20 years respectively. See Pub. L. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (extending renewal term for pre-1978 works to 47 years, for 75 years total protection); Pub. L. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998) (extending renewal term for pre-1978 works an additional 20 years, for 95 years total protection). Seeking to allow authors and their kin to share in the benefits of the newly extended terms, Congress afforded them a mechanism known as statutory termination. See 17 U.S.C. '304(c) and (d). The mechanism allows abrogation of contracts executed prior to Jan. 1, 1978, otherwise valid under state law, by which an author (or certain other specified persons) had transferred away copyright interests. To bolster and protect this termination right, Congress mandated that it may be effected 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.' 17 U.S.C. '304(c)(5); see also 17 U.S.C. '304(d)(1).
This summer, the Southern District of New York gave broad effect to that language. In Steinbeck v. McIntosh & Otis, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), the court held that a post-1978 contract canceling a pre-1978 grant and then re-granting the exact same copyright interests previously conveyed does not extinguish the statutory termination right. Any other construction, the court found, would render the post-1978 agreement an impermissible 'agreement to the contrary.' While it is consonant with decisions of the Second Circuit, the district court's holding is in tension with, and likely contrary to, recent decisions arising out of the Ninth Circuit. Whether this apparent conflict among the circuits will soften or sharpen awaits further judicial development and, perhaps, resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.