The TPP's Attack on Artists' Termination Rights
eff.org
eff.org
Further, this means that code that was once GPL or public domain could be reverted back to private ownership by the author or his heirs after 35 years. This would likely be a mess, would subsequent revisions be considered derivative infringement?
It was a common thing before '76, and the current statute is quite clear-- you can't sign anything that would give this right up before it happens.
It seems this applies to transfers, not licenses that have no effect on the copyright holder. The GPL, for example, doesn't take rights away from the original author and give them to someone else, unlike a recording contract.
"(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[...] is subject to termination under the following conditions [...]"
Has anyone written about the possible interactions with copyright termination of permissive and copyleft licenses?
[1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060622045521...
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060622...
Or maybe that was the intent of the software vendors all along -- revoke all licenses after 35 years so we have no choice but to upgrade ;-).
It strikes me as a rather tortured reading of this that makes it a limitation of the artists' rights, rather than the publishers'; like laws which outlaw contractual slavery, while it technically bans both parties from participating, the intended impact is much more on the would-be oppressor than the oppressed.
Now, the impact that this might have on open source is certainly interesting, but I doubt it would have far-reaching implications since termination wouldn't retroactively affect licenses that were in force at the time, so derivative works would be in the clear. On the other hand, who knows how the case law will shake out on this over the next few years... software will probably not be the most affected industry.
I'm personally not entirely against the law as it stands, and I agree that publishers have a great deal of power to define the terms of an agreement they can force on an artist. That said, I don't think it's so tortured to think someone really might not want her heirs to meddle with her license grants to a university or museum.
That's true (and without the 35 year limitation) just based on the fact that gratuitous licenses are revocable at will, terminations rights aren't even necessary to it.
The effect of revocation might be mitigated to some extent by promissory estoppel, but -- despite the fact that some people have asserted that that completely neutralizes the risk -- I've seen no substantial case law that is directly on point or even closely analogous that supports the idea that it would completely negate the effect of revocation.
But is this bad? Yes, there's definitely a power imbalance, but if the copyright regime is simpler, with no artificial legal limitations on the lifetime of the contractual assignment, then artists can negotiate either higher prices or reversion options at time of assignment.
Speaking as an artist (with experience of starving, being ripped off by publishers, and sundry other disadvantages), simplicity has value. A 35-year termination rights period is a nice idea for a corrective but actually limits my negotiating position as the publisher is going to discount the value of the copyright assignment appropriately. The flip side of the economic imbalance between creator and publisher is that the publisher is in a much better position to realize the benefits of long-tail revenue, since publishers have expertise in marketing, analytics, revenue collection etc. that are difficult for an individual to acquire, and whose acquisition has a significant opportunity cost in terms of creative development/output. If the publisher can lose all contractual rights after 35 years then it has every economic incentive to a) maximize up-front economic gain and b) minimize long term commitment.
Also, as regards the TPP specifically, if this deal were to go through as-is then artists would be able to argue that overseas publication rights were worth more money due to the harmony of regulation, in stead of having revenue siphoned off my the bureaucracy of dealing with multiple differing copyright regimes in the signatory countries. In my view, a single licensing standard that extended from the EU (via upcoming TTIP negotiations) to much of the Pacific Rim (via TPP) would be a distinct plus for artists, since that would cover something like 70% of the global economy and would massively reduce transaction costs.
On the surface, I like the argument that the value proposition is higher if it's a true permanent transfer, but there's no guarantee that more money would get passed on to the artist if the publisher could just increase its own margins.
Think 'lost Beatles track,' for example. Likewise, Fritz Lang's film classic 'Metropolis' is under copyright until 2023; there have been several reissues of the film with missing footage restored (after being found in museums and the like). Film contracts in particular often have structural dependencies on box-office performance.