On 6/8/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 08 June 2005 05:57 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > If you truly wish to do so, you may strip your heirs, in your last > > will and testament, of statutory termination rights, by the simple > > expedient of ratifying an existing assignment of copyright to a > > corporate entity run by the benevolent dictator of your choice. You > > don't even have to trust that benevolent dictator beyond the point at > > which your work is first published under their copyright notice and a > > sufficiently permissive license, as long as that license is contained > > in an offer of bilateral contract such as the GPL. (Unilateral grants > > of license, with no return consideration, are terminable at will in > > many jurisdictions irrespective of their ostensible term.) > > Sorry but this won't work either. The statue is quite clear that the > termination right is non-assignable, even through a will. If you have a > surviving spouse, children, or other "issue" then they will get the > termination right under standard intestancy rules. Even when all of those > folks are dead, the termination right cannot be transfered by a will, it goes > into the hands of your estate's executor.
(a) Conditions for Termination. — 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: See that "otherwise than by will" part? The termination right is not assignable through a will, but a transfer by will is not terminable. > > .... Unless, of course, that person goes to the trouble of > > setting up a corporate shell and handling the accounting properly to > > substantiate a claim that his or her work was "made for hire" to begin > > with. [snip] > > > > Current US law does not permit a 32-year-old man to make a promise of > > eternal copyright license (with respect to a work not made for hire) > > binding on his 69-year-old future self. This is generally held to be > > a liberty granted to independent authors and artists (and their heirs) > > in recognition of both their courage and their improvidence. It is > > quite futile to protest this feature of the law, as it dates from 1978 > > and is easily circumvented (if you really want to) with a little > > planning and competent legal advice. > > Yeah, don't know what you mean here... I can't see how any amount of legal > planning is going to avoid future-selves/heirs from exercising their > termination rights. Work-made-for-hire exception. AIUI, that's how the pros in Hollywood work around it -- anyone whose contribution to a film rises to the level of "authorship" (especially screenplay writers) and hasn't already been completed is expected to "work for hire" within a corporate shell. I don't know how they approach adaptations of novels in which the copyright was originally held personally -- ask Christopher Tolkien, maybe. [snip] > p.s. I very much believe that all residences of a jurisdiction should be able > to fully discuss the implication of the law and how it should be applied... > but if it counts for anything, I am just finishing my 2nd year in law school > having aced all of my IP course work. It's always nice to have genuinely knowledgeable people (which I am not) in the discussion. :-) You may be right about the "utilize" language in 17 USC 203 (b) (1); I ought to track down the full House Report. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
