<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Well, no one else has taken a stab at it, so I will. You get what
you pay for.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/7/2024 9:14 AM, Carl Oppedahl via
Copyright wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6beffc1b-3c0e-4b4c-a8a0-abf58aea17ed@oppedahl.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><o:p>A listserv member asks to post
anonymously ... </o:p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">The basic
scenario:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">Artist creates
the Work in 2010.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">Artist licenses
the right to publish the Work to Licensee pursuant to an
Agreement in 2010 for the life of the copyright.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">Artist assigns
the Agreement to NewCo Inc. (wholly-owned by Artist) in 2011.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">The
assignment of the 2010 Agreement to NewCo Inc. does not
eliminate Artist’s Section 203 copyright termination right
with respect to the 2010 Agreement with Licensee (assuming
Artist complies with notice/recordation requirements, etc.),
correct?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#0080ff">I believe so. The authorship remains the same,
only the rights under an agreement were transferred, which
shouldn't affect the author's termination rights. As a validation
of this theory, I assume that rights to musical works are shuffled
around like partners at a square dance and artists are still
exercising their right of termination.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6beffc1b-3c0e-4b4c-a8a0-abf58aea17ed@oppedahl.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><o:p></o:p><br>
</li>
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">Does the
answer change if Artist also assigns the copyright to the
Work to NewCo Inc. in 2011?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#0080ff">I don't read section 203 as creating any
different answer from above. "In the case of any work other than a
work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a
transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a
copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978,
otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the
following conditions ..." It wasn't created as a work made for
hire, which is the only exclusionary condition, so I believe both
the original grant and the assignment to NewCo can be terminated
at the appropriate times.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6beffc1b-3c0e-4b4c-a8a0-abf58aea17ed@oppedahl.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><o:p></o:p><br>
</li>
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">Does the
answer change if the assignee in 2011 is Artist’s revocable
trust (instead of NewCo Inc.)? </li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#0080ff">I don't see why it would. It is a transfer of
ownership. Nothing in the statute says there is a different result
depending on the legal entity type of the assignee or licensee.
But, it's its a revocable trust, so maybe it's easier to do it
under revocation of the trust rather than termination? (I don't
know anything about revocable trusts.) </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6beffc1b-3c0e-4b4c-a8a0-abf58aea17ed@oppedahl.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><o:p></o:p><br>
</li>
<li class="MsoNoSpacing"
style="margin-left:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">Is it
correct that new licenses of the Work granted by NewCo Inc.
(or Artist’s revocable trust) after the 2011 assignment
would not be subject to any Section 203 copyright
termination right (since the new licenses would not be
treated as a grant by the “author”)?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#0080ff">I think that's right. But when the author
revokes NewCo/trust's rights, then the grantee of the NewCo/trust
rights would also be revoked, however subject to the derivative
work rights in Section 203(b)(1). Perhaps it would be in the
copyright owner's interest for the entity to state affirmatively
in any licenses the entity grants that the license terminates if
and when its rights terminate, but maybe someone more experienced
in termination will say that's not necessary.</font><br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville Street<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
(919) 800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>