Yesterday we observed that the copyright interest awarded to the Siegel heirs was not the same as what Siegel and Shuster would have if they’d created Superman today. The reason for this lies in the rather arcane set of rules that govern copyrighted material created and sold before 1978.
If you think I’m exaggerating with the word “arcane,” take a look at this chart on the length of copyright. And I do mean just “take a look,” because people who spend more than a few moments to trying to figure it out tend to wind up muttering to themselves incoherently or deciding to go to law school.
Since there are several lengthy and sometimes conflicting explanations of the relevant law on the web, I’ve decided that our discussion of these issues is going to have a couple of ground rules. One, it’s going to be relatively short and simple–my aim here is to explain the core concepts, not to write a comprehensive treatise. Rule #2: where possible, to link to the relevant law. That way, if you’re explaining it to someone and they try to make you look foolish, you can be the hero of the beach.
For our purposes, two sections of the copyright law are particularly important: Section 203 and Section 304. Section 304 is the one that applies to the Action Comics #1. Section 203 covers the termination of transfers and licenses made on or after January 1, 1978.
Transfers or licenses after 1977. Setting the Siegel case aside for a moment, let’s consider the law that applies to creators who sell work today. You might think that when you hand the rights over to someone else, that’s it–you’re out of the picture. But that’s not what the law says. As you can see from Section 203–note especially 203(a)(3)–creators have the right to terminate an assignment or license (generally) after 35 years, provided they file a timely termination notice.
That’s right. To protect creators from being victimized when they sell a work for far less than it turns out to be worth, Congress gave them the right to terminate the sale or license after thirty-five years. And this doesn’t just apply to work created now; it also applies to earlier copyrighted material transferred or licensed since 1977.
There is, of course, a significant exception: works made for hire. If the material in question falls into that category, then the author cannot exercise termination rights.
The Siegel Case. The rules that govern the Siegel case are somewhat different. Here Section 304 applies, since the relevant material was created and transferred before 1978. Since the rules are a bit complex we’ll cover them in their own post.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Jeff,
This is a nice, straight-forward starting point for the discussion. I think where the confusion comes in is distinguishing between a transfer or sell and what constitutes work for hire. I know that the key cases I have read and studied; Moore-McFarlane, Marv Wolfman, and others it seemed that the was key decision that the courts had to make.
I look forward to your continued analysis and coverage these issues.