Page:Copyright Office Compendium 3rd Edition - Full.djvu/1018

, Third Edition Exception: Next of kin are not entitled to claim the renewal copyright when an author left a will without naming an executor and an administrator c.t.a. or administrator d.b.n.c.ta. was acting in this capacity on the last day of the original term (or on the effective date of a timely renewal registration]. See Gibran v. National Committee of Gibran, 255 F.2d 121, 122 (2d Cir. 1958).

2115.5(C)(2) Proprietary Works

The law provides four exceptions to the general rule that the individual author (or the author's heirs as described above) is entitled to claim the renewal copyright. For the following types of works, the proprietor of copyright on the last day of the original term (or on the effective date of a timely renewal registration) may claim the renewal copyright:

• Works made for hire. The exception that entitles "an employer for whom such work is made for hire" was created to make it possible for a proprietary author (the employer) to claim the renewal copyright in a work created at its "instance and expense." 17

NOTE: Generally for this exception to apply, the original copyright claimant must have secured copyright by virtue of employing the creator, rather than through any transfer of rights after the work was completed. When a renewal claim indicates that the work was not "copyrighted" by the employer [i.e. the employer transferred the common law property to a third person prior to publication or registration as an unpublished work), the U.S. Copyright Office will advise the applicant about this situation and request confirmation that the facts of authorship are accurately stated.

• Composite works. The purpose of this exception was to provide the proprietor the means of renewing the copyright when, as a practical matter, there were too many authors to join in the renewal claim. To be an acceptable basis for a renewal claim, the work must meet the criteria for composite works.

17 This phrase comes from court decisions regarding works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1909. See, e.g., Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 108 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 1939) (discussing purposes and expense); Brattleboro Publishing Co. v. Winmill Publishing Corp., 369 F.2d 565, 567 (2d Cir. 1966); Picture Music, Inc. v. Bourne, Inc., 457 F.2d 1213, 1216 (2d Cir. 1972); Murray v. Gelderman, 566 F.2d 1307, 1310 (5th Cir. 1978); Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children & Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, 815 F.2d 323, 325-28 (5th Cir. 1987).

Chapter 2100 : 28

12/22/2014 Chapter _00 : 28