Know Your Rights: A Guide for Photographers on Understanding Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights In Your Work

As a photographer, your work is your art, your business, and your livelihood. Whether you are a freelancer, a hobbyist selling your photos online, or a professional contracted for commercial projects, it is crucial to understand the legal protections afforded to you under copyright law. Having represented many photographs over the years in my law practice, in order to answer the most frequently asked questions, what follows is a basic outline of the key rights you should be aware of in order to protect your creative output.

1. You Own the Copyright the Moment You Take the Photograph

Under the U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code), copyright protection exists from the moment the photograph is created in a fixed, tangible form - which means as soon as you take the photo and save it (digitally or otherwise), you are the copyright owner.

This gives you exclusive rights to:

• Reproduce the photograph
• Distribute copies
• Display the image publicly
• Create derivative works
• License the image to others

You do not have to register the photo with the U.S. Copyright Office to own the copyright. However, registration does provide additional rights and remedies, and is required if you want to commence legal action for infringement and collect statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

2. Work for Hire

Under certain circumstances, particularly if  you are employed by a company and take photos as part of your job duties, or you are contracted for a particular project, your employer - not you - likely owns the copyrights as a matter of “work for hire” under US copyright law.

For freelancers, a work for hire agreement must be in writing and fit into a narrow category of accepted works (e.g., a contribution to a collective work or part of a motion picture). If it does not meet these criteria then you retain copyright, even if someone else paid for the shoot (unless you assign it in writing).

Best Practice: Always use a written contract clearly stating whether the work is a work for hire or a licensed work where you retain the copyright.

3. Licensing: Control How Your Work Is Used

Licensing allows others to use your photos under your terms. Licenses can be:

• Exclusive or non-exclusive
• Limited by time, geography, or medium
• Royalty-free or rights-managed

Be specific in your contracts. For instance, if you license a photo for use in a print brochure, state whether digital use is also permitted. Ambiguity often leads to disputes.

4. Model Releases: When You Need Them

A copyright gives you the right to your image, but using identifiable people in commercial contexts may violate their right of publicity or privacy.

• Commercial use (advertising, product packaging): Requires a signed model release.
• Editorial use (news, commentary, art): Generally does not require a release.
• Stock photography: Most reputable agencies require model releases for any identifiable person in a commercially licensable image.

Best practice: Get signed model and property releases when possible - it protects you and increases your options for licensing.

5. Infringement: What If Someone Uses Your Work Without Permission?

If someone uses your photo without a license:

• Document the use (screenshots, URLs, dates).
• Determine if it’s a fair use (educational, commentary, etc.—consult a lawyer).
• Send a cease and desist letter or DMCA takedown notice.
• File a copyright infringement claim if needed (only possible if the work is registered).

If you filed a copyright registration on your work prior to the infringement then you are entitled to damages in an amount up to $150,000 per infringement plus legal fees. Without a copyright registration, you’re limited to actual damages and profits which you must prove at trial.

6. Protecting Your Work Online

• Use watermarks strategically.
• Embed metadata (EXIF/IPTC) with your name and contact info.
• Consider reverse image search tools (like Google Images) to monitor unauthorized use.
• Register your most valuable work with the Copyright Office - it’s affordable and powerful.

Final Thoughts

Photography is both an art and a business. By understanding your legal rights, you can control how your images are used, protect your creative investments, and take informed action against infringement. In most cases, it is best to try to memorialize get your arrangement in writing. Remember the importance of contracts, copyright registration, and proactive enforcement. When in doubt, consult a lawyer experienced in the area for legal advice.

 

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 35 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School.

Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com

 

UNDERSTANDING TERMINATION RIGHTS UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

The 1976 Copyright Act provides for the termination of copyright transfers. It entitles content creators to reclaim their copyrights - regardless of any contract stating otherwise –after certain time periods. So, even if an author, artist, musician, photographer or songwriter signed a contract which purports to transfer all rights in a work for perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author of the work (or the author's heirs) can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert in a shorter period of time. Authors and creators are now entitled to terminate their contractual transfers and demand back control of their copyrights: authors can terminate their book publishing contracts, songwriters can demand return of their musical compositions from music publishers and recording artists and record producers can demand return of their sound recordings from the record companies.

Generally speaking, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, says that a copyright owner (or his or her heirs) can terminate all grants, licenses or transfers of beginning on the 56th year after that assignment was made. Termination may be exercised anytime during a 5 year period beginning at the end of either the 35 year or 56 year period from the execution of the grant (as applicable) or, if the pre-1978 grant concerns the right of publication of the work, then the period begins on the sooner of 35 years after publication or 40 years after execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters were entitled to start exercising their right of termination on post-1978 works as of the start of 2013. 

The big exception to the termination right is if a work was done as a "work-for-hire.” Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 delineates what types of works by their nature are incontestably works for hire. It is essentially a two part test: (1) was the work created by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, and; (2) if not, is it (a) one of the nine enumerated work-for-hire classes of works and (b) is there a written agreement signed by the author acknowledging the work for hire relationship. Included on the list of nine enumerated categories of works that are works for hire are collective works, compilations and motion pictures. Not included on this list are books, photographs, songs and sound recordings.

There are ongoing legal battles over how termination rights affect the book, comic book and motion picture fields. Not unexpectedly, the entertainment business companies are not pleased with the copyright termination provision and the inevitable ramifications thereof.

With respect to songs and music publishers, some litigation has already been decided. In Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis (Case No. 11 CV 1557 (C.D. CA 2012), California Federal District Judge Moskowitz determined that original Village People member, Victor Willis, could terminate his transfers and recapture a direct copyright interest in many of his group's songs, including "YMCA." In this case, after Willis notified Scorpio that he was terminating the prior transfers, Scorpio sued arguing that Willis could not terminate because a majority of each song's authors had not also agreed to terminate their transfers. The court sided with Willis, ruling that an author can unilaterally terminate the transfer of his share in a copyrighted work without his co-writers.  Although the Scorpio decision addressed a fairly narrow point concerning multi-author transfers, the decision opens the way for most songwriters to get their composition copyrights returned and sets the stage for the bigger battles looming on the recorded music side of the business. The copyright termination procedures apply to the separate and equally lucrative sound recording copyrights transferred to record labels as part of typical recording artist contracts over the years. Since the term “sound recordings” is not explicitly contained in the enumerated work for hire category list, practitioners representing record companies will need to try to find other ways to justify any claim that sound recordings are indeed works for hire in order to preclude termination by artists.

The termination rights of the author or creator of a copyrighted work are generally subject to a 5 year window. Termination must be made effective within the termination window or the right to terminate the grant is forfeited. To be effective, the author must serve a written notice of termination on the original record company or publisher (and/or any successors) no more than 10 and no less than 2 years prior to the effective date stated in the notice. The notice of termination must state the effective date of termination. Perfection of the termination requires that a copy of the written notice also be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination.

Although the termination rights of an artist under the 1976 Copyright Act would only be effective for the U.S. territory, the size of the U.S. consumer market still makes this a valuable right to reclaim.            

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a songwriter and teenage recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. 

Tel: (212) 661-3656;  www.wallacecollins.com 

Thinking Out Loud about the Blurred Lines in Current Copyright Law

As a copyright lawyer, my opinion is that the "Blurred Lines" decision should have been overturned on appeal. However, the more recent victory for Ed Sheeran in the "Thinking Out Loud" copyright case probably has the same net effect, and will mute the prospective ramifications of the "Blurred Lines" decision.

The genre or musical style of a song is not specifically protectable under the language of the copyright statute nor the relevant case law. In most cases, the lyrics and the melody are what is at issue, and whether there was copying or substantial similarity between the lyrics or melody of one song and the other. However, that was not the allegation in the "Blurred Lines" case. The essence of the claim was that defendants copied the groove and style of the Marvin Gaye song "Got To Give It Up" when they created "Blurred Lines", and I did not believe that the jury's decision should be upheld on appeal as a matter of copyright law.

In modern popular music it is understandable that current artists are effectively midgets standing on the shoulders of giants in order to reach new heights... and some similarities are bound to appear in the new works so created. However, when it comes to the particulars and technicalities of copyright law, emotions (particularly envy and jealousy) are usually not well-suited to reaching a correct resolution (and that applies to the jury as well as to the many pundit opinions that proliferated after the Blurred Lines decision).

Prior to the Ed Sheeran "Thinking Out Loud" decision, my research indicated that the "Blurred Lines" case was the only copyright infringement lawsuit in which no specific melody or lyrics were alleged to have been copied. The apparent 'that songs reminds me of another song' threshold suggested by the "Blurred Lines" jury decision could potentially have established a new legal standard. If that was the new threshold for copyright infringement, a lot of modern artists as well as 60's British artists (from the Beatles on across the spectrum) could have been in legal trouble. The floodgates for such litigation could have been flung open.

For now, however, it appears Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" case will mute the effect of the "Blurred Lines" decision and hold back what could have been a flood of potential lawsuits - at least for now.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer handling contract negotiation and general copyright and trademark law matters in the music, film, television, book, fine arts and technology areas. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before graduating from Fordham Law School. T: (212) 661-3656; wallacecollins@gmail.com; www.wallacecollins.com 

SUPERSTAR CATALOG SALES OCCURING NOW ARE SUBJECT TO TERMINATION IN 35 YEARS!

      Under the 1976 Copyright Act, the length of copyright protection was extended for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, it also established a right for authors or their heirs to terminate copyright transfers after a certain period of time. In other words, even if an artist or songwriter signed a contract that purports to transfer all rights in a work in perpetuity, even if the artist or songwriter is “unrecouped”, the Copyright Act provides that the author can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert in a shorter period of time. Recording artists and songwriters have been terminating their contractual transfers and demanding back control of their copyrights. As anyone reading the headlines is aware, numerous superstar artists and songwriters (e.g., Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Sting, etc.) have sold their entire catalogs to third parties for enormous sums. However, it does not appear that the 1976 Copyright Act sets forth any limit on how many times an author is entitled to terminate the transfer of copyrights – which would seem to indicate that 35 years from now these superstars (or, more likely, their heirs) will be entitled to again terminate the contractual transfer and regain the copyrights under Section 203 of the Copyright Act.

     Generally speaking under the Copyright Act, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the law. For grants by an author on or after 1978, termination must be exercised prior to the 5 year period beginning at the end of 35 years from the execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate termination of the transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters were entitled to exercise their rights of termination on post-1978 works as of the start of 2013. Current headlines announce that many superstars have done precisely that, and then turned around and sold their music catalogs for millions of dollars. Although under Section 203 heirs who execute such a grant post-1978 cannot reclaim those rights again (e.g., Prince's estate), grants executed by an author on or after January 1, 1978 (including recent catalog sales by Dylan, Springsteen, Sting, etc.) do appear that they can be recaptured again after 35 years. 

    As a matter of music business history, back when the 1976 Copyright Act was drafted, few practitioners would have envisioned a world where the artists might not need the record companies to finance, manufacture, warehouse and distribute their physical records. Back then the expectation was that, although any particular artist could exercise the termination right, what would effectively happen is that the label and artist would simply be forced to renegotiate a deal to continue working together (either with the artist or with the heirs of the deceased songwriter or artist). Now, in the current digital transmission age, this is no longer necessarily true. Any artist can demand back the copyright in the masters and then simply offer them directly to fans on the artist’s website or the artist can license the rights to an online aggregator or digital streaming service with little or no expense. This is particularly true in the case of the recordings of certain well-established artists because those artists would not need the record company’s ongoing support to finance the recording costs to create new recordings, store their product nor require the funds for promotion and marketing. High profile artists with established fan bases and large catalogs of music like Blondie, the Cars, Bruce Springsteen and others have no need for much in the way of advertising and marketing, and there is no longer a need for manufacturing, distributing or warehousing of their product. Simple ownership and possession of the digitized masters is sufficient to conduct business.

     It is noteworthy that, unlike song publishing contracts which generally provide for the assignment and transfer of a song copyright to the publisher, most record contracts have provided that the sound recording is created as a “work for hire” for the record label. Under the 1976 Copyright Act the termination provision is not applicable to certain types of copyrights, including a genuine “work for hire” grant. However, this does not preclude recording artists from exercising their right of termination. Sound recordings are not listed under section §101(2) which identifies various works that constitute a work for hire. Moreover, several years ago I litigated a case, Ballas v. Tedesco (41 F.Supp.2d 531 (D.C.N.J. 1999)), where a New Jersey Federal District Court addressed this issue and Judge Greenaway held that the sound recording in that case did not qualify as a work for hire. There is a great deal of case law addressing the applicable legal employer/employee issues involved including those established in the seminal Supreme Court case Community For Creative Non-Violence, 490 U.S. at 738, 109 S.Ct. 2166 which held that a statue did not satisfy the terms of §101(2) because it "does not fit within any of the nine categories of ‘specially ordered or commissioned' works enumerated in that subsection, and no written agreement between the parties establishes [the statue] as a work for hire.” Most case law that addresses the subject of “work for hire” holds that whether a work created by an employee is a work for hire or not depends on various factors as well as the circumstances of the relationship - and not just the language of the contract. This area of law has been ripe for dispute by any recording artist who tries to exercise termination rights against a record company that resists the claim where the facts suggest that no genuine “work for hire” relationship ever existed.

     Many superstar artists and songwriters have exercised their termination rights under the 1976 Copyright Act, regained their catalogs, and then made multi-million dollar deals to sell the catalogs. Current copyright law provides that the a copyright extends for the life of the author plus 70 years, so 35 years from now Section 203 of that same 1976 Copyright Act may allow the heirs of those superstars to terminate these current transfers, regain the catalogs, and start the whole process again resulting in more remuneration generated from the copyrights.

Wallace Collins is a New York lawyer practicing primarily in the area of entertainment law. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before attending Fordham Law School. www.wallacecollins.com

 

SOUND RECORDING AND SONG PUBLISHING TERMINATION RIGHTS UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

      The 1976 Copyright Act provides for the termination of copyright transfers. Even if an artist or songwriter signed a contract with a record company or music publisher which purports to transfer all rights in a work in perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert to the author in a shorter period of time. Recording artists and songwriters are now entitled to terminate their contractual transfers and demand back control of their copyrights; songwriters can demand return of their musical compositions from music publishers and recording artists and record producers can demand return of their sound recordings from the record companies.

     Generally speaking, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works the termination period is 56 years after copyright was originally secured under Section 304 (c)-(d). For grants on or after 1978, termination may be exercised anytime during a 5 year period beginning at the end of 35 years from the execution of the grant or, if the grant concerns the right of publication of the work, then the period begins on the sooner of 35 years after publication or 40 years after execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters were entitled to start exercising their right of termination on post-1978 works as of the start of 2013.  

     Not unexpectedly, the record companies as well as the music publishers are not pleased with the copyright termination provision and the inevitable ramifications thereof. With respect to songs and music publishers, some seminal cases have already been decided. In Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis (11 CV 1557 (C.D. CA 2012), California Federal District Judge Moskowitz determined that original Village People member, Victor Willis, could terminate his transfers and recapture a direct copyright interest in many of his group's songs, including "YMCA."  In this case, after Willis notified Scorpio that he was terminating the prior transfers, Scorpio sued arguing that Willis could not terminate because a majority of each song's authors had not also agreed to terminate their transfers. The court sided with Willis, ruling that an author can unilaterally terminate the transfer of his share in a copyrighted work without his co-writers. Willis stands to become the undivided owner of a one-half to one-third interest in 33 song copyrights. Although the Scorpio decision addressed a fairly narrow point concerning multi-author transfers, the decision sets the stage for the bigger battles looming on the recorded music side of the business. The same termination procedures apply to all copyrighted works, including the separate and equally lucrative sound recording copyrights transferred to record labels as part of typical recording artist contracts over the years.

     Back when the 1976 Copyright Act was drafted, few practitioners would have envisioned a world where the artists might not need the record companies to finance, manufacture, warehouse and distribute their records. Back then the expectation was that, although any particular artist could exercise the termination right, what would effectively happen is that the label and artist would simply be forced to renegotiate a deal to continue working together (either with the artist or with the heirs of the deceased songwriter or artist). Now, in the current digital transmission age, this is no longer necessarily true. Any artist can demand back the copyright in the masters and then simply offer them directly to fans on the artist’s website or the artist can license the rights to an online aggregator or digital streaming service with little or no expense. This is particularly true in the case of the recordings of certain well-established artists because those artists would not need the record company’s ongoing support to finance the recording costs to create recordings, store product nor require the funds for promotion and marketing. The more digital the music business becomes the more obsolete the large record labels may become for established artists. High profile artists with established fan bases and large catalogs of music like Blondie, the Cars, Bruce Springsteen and others would have no need for much in the way of advertising and marketing, and no need for manufacturing, distributing or warehousing of their product. Simple ownership and possession of the digitized masters would be sufficient to conduct business.

      Unlike song publishing contracts which generally provide for the assignment and transfer of a song copyright to the publisher, most record contracts provide that the sound recording is created as a “work for hire” for the record label. Under the 1976 Copyright Act the termination provision is not applicable to certain types of copyrights, including a genuine “work for hire” grant. However, this does not preclude recording artists from exercising their right of termination. Sound recordings are not listed under section §101(2) which identifies various works that constitute a work for hire. Moreover, several years ago I litigated a case, Ballas v. Tedesco (41 F.Supp.2d 531 (D.C.N.J. 1999)), where a New Jersey Federal District Court addressed this issue and Judge Greenaway held that the sound recording in that case did not qualify as a work for hire. There is a great deal of case law addressing the applicable legal employer/employee issues involved including those established in the seminal Supreme Court case Community For Creative Non-Violence, 490 U.S. at 738, 109 S.Ct. 2166 ("CCNV") which held that a statue did not satisfy the terms of §101(2) because it "does not fit within any of the nine categories of ‘specially ordered or commissioned' works enumerated in that subsection, and no written agreement between the parties establishes [the statue] as a work for hire.” Most case law that addresses the subject of “work for hire” holds that whether a work created by an employee is a work for hire or not depends on various factors as well as the circumstances of the relationship - and not just the language of the contract. This area of law appears to be ripe for litigation by recording artists who want to exercise their termination rights where the facts suggest that no genuine work-for-hire relationship ever existed. 

    From what I have researched, it appears that in most cases the artist has a fair likelihood of prevailing over the record company on this point when the CCNV "work for hire" factors are applied (i.e., artist not an employee (e.g., no unemployment benefits paid/withheld, etc.), artist not under the direct supervision and control of the record company during the creative process, etc.) - so I expect that the record companies will make a decision to negotiate with the bigger superstar artists and then turn the other cheek with the recordings generating less income and just let them revert back to the artists (since a bad precedent in a lawsuit could open the floodgates for other artists to demand back their masters).

     The termination rights of an artist or songwriter are generally subject to a 5 year window. Termination must be made effective within the termination window or the right to terminate the grant is forfeited. To be effective, the artist or songwriter must serve a written notice of termination on the original record company or publisher (and/or any successors) no more than 10 and no less than 2 years prior to the effective date stated in the notice. The notice of termination must state the effective date of termination. Perfection of the termination requires that a copy of the written notice also be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination.

     Although the termination rights of an artist under the 1976 Copyright Act would only be effective for the U.S. territory, the size of the U.S. consumer market for recorded music still makes this a valuable right to reclaim. However, what is good for the artists and creators might further erode the influence of the major record labels and prove detrimental to them as music industry powerhouses in the future.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer specializing in entertainment, copyright, trademark and internet law. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before attending Fordham Law School. T: (212)661-3656 www.wallacecollins.com

Benefits for Producers and Recording Studio Engineers in the Music Modernization Act

The Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) is now the law of the land. The MMA is comprehensive and sweeping in its scope. The MMA revamps Section 115 and repeals Section 114(i) of the U.S. Copyright Act. It creates a public data base to facilitate and expedite payments to songwriters and it overhauls the rate Court system and changes the standard for setting rates to a free market standard. The MMA also incorporates several other major pieces of legislation including the CLASSICS Act (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society Act) which grants copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings so songwriters and artists can receive royalties on pre-1972 recordings and the AMP Act (or Allocation for Music Producers Act), which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio.

Most importantly for record producers, the MMA codifies into law the right of music producers and recording studio engineers to collect digital royalties through a consistent, permanent process. The MMA is an amalgamation of several bills including the AMP Act. This portion of the MMA guarantees that producers and engineers not only receive credit but also proper compensation for their contributions to the making of a sound recording. SoundExchange, which administers royalties from non-interactive streaming recordings, will provide direct payment of royalties owed to producers and engineers upon direction by the featured artist.

Music producers have never been mentioned in any part of the copyright law prior to the MMA. The MMA has codified the producer’s right to collect those royalties due to them and formalizes SoundExchange’s current voluntary policy. As explained by the Recording Academy, which advocated for the AMP Act, “Since 1995, featured performers have had a statutory right to 45 percent of the performance royalties collected from non-interactive, digital music services. Subject to their contract with the artist, producers often collect royalties from that 45 percent because they were not included in the 1995 law for a statutory right.”

Record producers who are also songwriters should affiliate with a performing rights society (e.g., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) in order to collect their performance royalties as well as the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the "MLC") in order to collect all monies that are due to them for their musical compositions.

For sound recordings older than 1995, the AMP Act establishes a procedure for producers and engineers to seek permission from featured artists or their heirs to receive appropriate royalty payments.

Wallace Collins is a New York lawyer specializing in entertainment, copyright, trademark and internet law. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before attending Fordham Law School. T: (212)661-3656 www.wallacecollins.com

BEWARE: Recent Decision in CBS Lawsuit Over Pre-1972 Sound Recording Could Wreak Havoc In The Copyright World

The recording artist and songwriter communities should take note of a recent decision in ABS Entertainment, Inc. v. CBS Corporation, et al., a case concerning pre-1972 copyrights - and raise an outcry! The Judge in this case held that remastered versions of old songs are entitled to a new copyright and owners of the originals are not allowed to stop the public performance of them.

Over the past few years, the public performance of songs authored before sound recordings fell under Federal copyright law has become a contentious legal issue. This ABS v. CBS ruling could help immunize terrestrial radio operators and others from lawsuits and disturb many preconceived notions about copyright law. The case arose from a dispute between ABS, owner of recordings by Al Green and others, and CBS Radio, which was dragged into court in this case after other plaintiffs had been successful litigating the theory that pre-1972 songs are protected under State law and could not be broadcast without permission. The ABS lawsuit cut against decades of precedent that songs on the radio served promotional purposes and should not generate compensation for owners. As times have changed, with sales becoming less meaningful to artists, owners have pushed lawsuits and lobbying efforts to shake up the system.

As its defense to the ABS lawsuit, CBS argued that it was not broadcasting the original analog recordings but rather remastered versions that came out after 1972. Under this specious argument, the specifically performed works would not be protected by State law and CBS would not have to pay anything. ABS argued that what sound engineers accomplish by tweaking timbre, balance and loudness is "mechanical" and not sufficiently original to be entitled to copyright protection. ABS further argued that to accept otherwise would mean owners of sound recordings would enjoy perpetual copyright over works.

Incredibly, the Judge accepted the position of CBS. On the issue of originality, the Judge gave credence to the CBS expert, an acoustic engineer and research scientist specializing in forensic investigation of audio evidence, and held that the plaintiffs' pre-1972 sound recordings "have undergone sufficient changes during the remastering process to qualify for federal copyright protection," adding that ABS did not offer sufficient evidence to even make this a contestable point for a jury to decide.  As a specific example, the Judge referred to the remastered version of Ace Cannon's 1961 recording "Tuff," which the expert found had additional reverberation, was played in a different musical key and at a faster tempo. The Judge accepted the proposition that these were not merely “mechanical changes or processes ... such as a change in format, de-clicking and noise reduction,” nor were the changes “trivial,” making note of the fact that experienced sound engineers were brought in for a reason. "Instead, the changes reflect 'multiple kinds of creative authorship, such as adjustments of equalization, sound editing and channel assignment,'” he writes. ABS also tried to argue that sound recordings authored before 1972 cannot serve as a "pre-existing work" for a later derivative work, but the Judge found that argument to be unpersuasive. And so, for now, based on this decision, the remastered versions are independently copyrightable.

The holding in this case determined that for some of the recordings in dispute, such as Green's "Let's Stay Together" and Jackie Wilson's "I'm Coming on Back to You": there is no disagreement that the version publicly performed is different from the pre-1972 versions; that for other songs there is no genuine dispute that CBS is performing the post-1972 versions; and that for the remaining songs ABS failed to offer up sufficient evidence that CBS is performing pre-1972 versions. It all adds up to huge victory for CBS as well as roadmap for how radio can publicly perform older sound recordings without liability... and it is a horrific, although hopefully temporary, decision for the recording  artist community.

Hopefully, this decision will be overturned on appeal so as not to wreak havoc on issues of copyright term, termination rights and its singular determination that sound engineers do copyrightable work when they remaster sound recordings.

* Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. T: (212) 661-3656; www.wallacecollins.com 

HOW DO I GET MY RIGHTS BACK: TERMINATION RIGHTS UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

     The 1976 Copyright Act provides for the termination of copyright transfers. It entitles content creators to reclaim their copyrights - regardless of any contract stating otherwise –after certain time periods. So, even if an author, artist, musician, photographer or songwriter signed a contract which purports to transfer all rights in a work for perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author of the work (or the author's heirs) can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert in a shorter period of time. Authors and creators are now entitled to terminate their contractual transfers and demand back control of their copyrights: authors can terminate their book publishing contracts, songwriters can demand return of their musical compositions from music publishers and recording artists and record producers can demand return of their sound recordings from the record companies.

            

   Generally speaking, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, says that a copyright owner (or his or her heirs) can terminate all grants, licenses or transfers of beginning on the 56th year after that assignment was made. Termination may be exercised anytime during a 5 year period beginning at the end of either the 35 year or 56 year period from the execution of the grant (as applicable) or, if the pre-1978 grant concerns the right of publication of the work, then the period begins on the sooner of 35 years after publication or 40 years after execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters were entitled to start exercising their right of termination on post-1978 works as of the start of 2013. 

       The big exception to the termination right is if a work was done as a "work-for-hire.” Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 delineates what types of works by their nature are incontestably works for hire. It is essentially a two part test: (1) was the work created by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, and; (2) if not, is it (a) one of the nine enumerated work-for-hire classes of works and (b) is there a written agreement signed by the author acknowledging the work for hire relationship. Included on the list of nine enumerated categories of works that are works for hire are collective works, compilations and motion pictures. Not included on this list are books, photographs, songs and sound recordings.

       There are ongoing legal battles over how termination rights affect the book, comic book and motion picture fields. Not unexpectedly, the entertainment business companies are not pleased with the copyright termination provision and the inevitable ramifications thereof.

       With respect to songs and music publishers, some litigation has already been decided. In Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis (Case No. 11 CV 1557 (C.D. CA 2012), California Federal District Judge Moskowitz determined that original Village People member, Victor Willis, could terminate his transfers and recapture a direct copyright interest in many of his group's songs, including "YMCA." In this case, after Willis notified Scorpio that he was terminating the prior transfers, Scorpio sued arguing that Willis could not terminate because a majority of each song's authors had not also agreed to terminate their transfers. The court sided with Willis, ruling that an author can unilaterally terminate the transfer of his share in a copyrighted work without his co-writers.  Although the Scorpio decision addressed a fairly narrow point concerning multi-author transfers, the decision opens the way for most songwriters to get their composition copyrights returned and sets the stage for the bigger battles looming on the recorded music side of the business. The copyright termination procedures apply to the separate and equally lucrative sound recording copyrights transferred to record labels as part of typical recording artist contracts over the years. Since the term “sound recordings” is not explicitly contained in the enumerated work for hire category list, practitioners representing record companies will need to try to find other ways to justify any claim that sound recordings are indeed works for hire in order to preclude termination by artists.

       The termination rights of the author or creator of a copyrighted work are generally subject to a 5 year window. Termination must be made effective within the termination window or the right to terminate the grant is forfeited. To be effective, the author must serve a written notice of termination on the original record company or publisher (and/or any successors) no more than 10 and no less than 2 years prior to the effective date stated in the notice. The notice of termination must state the effective date of termination. Perfection of the termination requires that a copy of the written notice also be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination.

       Although the termination rights of an artist under the 1976 Copyright Act would only be effective for the U.S. territory, the size of the U.S. consumer market still makes this a valuable right to reclaim. 

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a songwriter and teenage recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656;  www.wallacecollins.com