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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.