Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
This was introduced in the 1976 law, hence the 1978 cutoff date. Prior to that law being passed, contracts for transfers of copyright had no expectation of being terminated, and were not negotiated with that in mind.
|
Nor were they negotiated (with the public) with the concept that copyright was to last for more that 56 years, maximum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
If you bought a classic car from someone, and next year Congress passes a law stating "ownership of a car can be reverted to the original owner after 15 years," it would be profoundly unfair to make that law retroactive. You bought the car with the expectation that the transfer of ownership was permanent, not that the car could be taken away from you at a future date. However, if you buy it after that law was passed, it's caveat emptor.
|
The same should hold true for copyright. If a copyright was granted for a particular length, it should not be
ex post facto (retroactively) altered. To do so is no more fair to the public that granted it (if extended) or to the creator (if shortened) than the example above.
When people like myself point out how (to quote you above - "profoundly unfair to make that law retroactive"), All we get out of you is a big grin and "If you don't like it, change the law". Never an acknowledgment that the law is "profoundly unfair".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Thus, anyone who was on the receiving end of a transfer of copyright (i.e. the publishers) was essentially informed that the content creator could reclaim the copyright after 35 years, and should have negotiated accordingly.
Further, you cannot waive your right to terminate the transfer in advance. A publisher cannot include language in the contract that overrides your ability to reclaim the copyright.
If it's work for hire, then you never owned the copyright, and have no grounds to terminate the transfer.
The RIAA already tried, and failed, to change the law to exclude sound recordings.
There are no subsequent indications of anyone trying to change the law.
|
The fact that a major consortium of middlemen has already
tried to change the law, is not very optimistic that there won't be another change attempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
The law has already been tested in courts. Pre-1978 recordings basically cannot be terminated (Bob Marley case). However, partial rights can be terminated without requiring co-authors to also file for termination. Thus in May, a federal court upheld that 1 of the 3 co-authors of "YMCA" could terminate his transfer, without requiring the other co-authors to also file.
There is a chance record companies will claim that sound recordings were "works for hire," but this is highly unlikely to work in most cases. No one is going to believe Bruce Springsteen was an employee of Columbia Records.
Filing for the termination of transfer of copyright gives the content creator that negotiation power. They can maintain the status quo; they can demand a change to the contracts; or they can reclaim their initial copyright and self-publish it.
So as I said earlier: This is a clear example of how copyright law is not constructed in favor of the middle man. If anything, this part of the law is decidedly tilted in favor of the content creator, not the middle man.
|
Except for all art from 1923 to 1978. Which has already been extended twice, with a third extension slated for around 5 years from now....
Kali, when are you going to admit (at least to yourself) that copyright extension may be legal but it is "profoundly unfair"?
If you took away copyright extensions, and kept the 35 year clawback for post 1978 copyright, the corporate holders might find much of the "orphan work" problem goes away. And you might get more respect for copyright in general. But hey'd lose money, and that cannot be allowed to happen....
And for the pre 1978 works, creators usually got 8-15% royalties. And the corporation keeps 85-92% of the gross. Follow the money....