Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Little-known aspect of US copyright law means creators can reclaim their work
The Hollywood Reporter recently ran an article by Eriq Gardner entitled "Real-Life 'Terminator': Major Studios Face Sweeping Loss of Iconic '80s Film Franchise Rights," which is certainly an attention-demanding headline. Some of the franchise properties referred to in Gardner's piece are worth – without exaggeration – billions of dollars to the studios.
Money, in copyright-land, has the attribute of making things happen. Long story short, the creators of the original works underlying these now-classic films are making use of a relatively little-known (and little understood) aspect of US copyright law, known as "termination of transfers." Through this, creators can reclaim their rights from the studios to whom they sold them long ago (and perhaps sell them again, either to the same studios or to someone else).
Before we dive deeper into those particular film instances, we should back up a bit and look at the larger context of the two termination sections of Title 17 of the U.S. Code (comprising the US copyright statute) and what Congress had in mind when they inserted them.
There's no way, in a brief blog post, to substitute for a full study of this topic, but I'll provide a few helpful links along the way for readers who may wish to wade into the deeper end of this pool.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:06AM (7 children)
Every lawyer knows this. It's just that you retarded programmers don't listen to anybody but yourselves.
This was mentioned in the "gpl is revocable" debate on the lkml, and everywhere else, (in addition to the arguments regarding revoking non-exclusive gratis licenses)
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2019-11/msg00315.html [gnu.org]
Subject: bug#38002: Please remove this joke - Informing of legal rights is not a threat - 35 year copyright recovery for non-works-for-hire
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @09:55AM (5 children)
In all honesty, after all, it is a Runaway1956 submission, and he knows very little. That could be why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:29AM (4 children)
We could all chip in to buy you a little step stool, so you can climb up high enough to kiss Runaway's ass. Would that make you feel better?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @12:59PM (3 children)
Why? You reckon the hot air Runaway is so full with is finally enough to lift him off from this world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @01:04PM (2 children)
Wishful thinking, fren. Runaway has a concrete head, literally, as heavy and intelligent as a bucket of gravel bound with cement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @01:21PM (1 child)
Oh, I don't know. He's so full of hot air he farts from his fingers over intertubes into S/N.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @07:29PM
Looks like aristarchus has finally pushed the Runaway over the edge, and now he is submitting crap non-stop.
Unknown Nazi Officer at end of WWII
(Score: 2) by GDX on Monday November 11 2019, @12:42PM
Trying to revoke the GPL is really difficult as normally in a project there is not only a lone developer but a bunch of them, most of the time at best the developer can retract the license for it's code or change it even if he is the founder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:25AM (1 child)
Licensed. Not sold. The distinction is the whole point.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Monday November 11 2019, @02:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @04:41PM (2 children)
So how does it work? The summary doesn't say.
In reading the article, it sounds like, "after 25 years, the original creator can say, 'I want to revoke license/sale,' then at the 35 years they get it back. Done."
Is it really that easy? Can any legal experts (preferably lawyers, albeit amateur enthusiasts would also be good) explain?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @06:44PM
It's doublespeak for "attorney paychecks"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 11 2019, @07:17PM
IANAL, but TFA references another post [lawyersrock.com] which seems to express the process well. The timeframe to notify of the intent to terminate requires some calculation, but yeah it reads pretty much like your description. The author sends a notice to the transferee that they intend to reclaim the copyright on the work, and at the 35 year mark that notice becomes valid. (Which gives the transferee time to negotiate a new licensing deal or prepare their revenue streams for the loss of income).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Monday November 11 2019, @08:45PM
Wading into the deep end, I see
So we now get to wonder if the Linux kernel is a joint work.
And how the laws under which Linux is copyrighted relates to US law.
-- hendrk