Page:Roger Miller Music v. Sony-ATV Publishing (2012).djvu/6

No.&#160;10-5363 :(iii) the author's executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or


 * (iv) the author's next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author.

Id. § 304(a)(1)(C).

The original and renewal copyrights are distinct legal interests. An author who sells the original copyright to his work thus has a second chance to claim ownership at the end of the original term. This system protects an author who was in a weak bargaining position at the outset but whose work ultimately proved successful. Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 218-19 (1990). The statutory succession provision likewise provides a deceased author's family with a new chance to receive remuneration for a valuable creation. Id. at 218.

2. Assignments

Notwithstanding this author-protecting policy, an author can assign his interest in the renewal copyright, either before or after the start of the renewal term. Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U.S. 373, 375 (1960) (citing Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. 643 (1943)); Fred Fisher Music Co., 318 U.S. at 647, 655-56. However, the author has only a contingency interest in the renewal, which is all he can assign, “until the renewal period arrives.” Miller Music Corp., 362 U.S. at 375-78. If the author dies prior to that point, ownership of the renewal copyright passes to the statutory successors, regardless of whether the author had otherwise previously assigned or devised it. Id. at 375. This result follows from the fact that, as in other contractual relationships, a copyright assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and thus is entitled to the copyright only if the assigning author would otherwise be entitled to it. See id. at 377-78; see also Plumb v. Fluid Pump Serv., Inc.,, 864 (7th Cir. 1997) (“‘[E]lementary contract law provides that upon a valid and unqualified assignment the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes the same rights, title and interest possessed by the assignor.’” (quoting ''Moutsopoulos v. Am. Mut. Ins. Co.'',, 1189 (7th Cir. 1979))).