We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
334
19
nevertheless, or perhaps predictably, reflected a compromise that had been worked out.*^ With the exception of amendments made in 1966 clarifying who may terminate and specifying the allocation of the terminated interests, ^^ the termination provisions in the 1965 bills are identical to those incorporated in the 1976 Act. This fact is significant because it demonstrates that the parties stuck with the compromise for eleven years while the revision process struggled through a number of explosive issues. Indeed, the compromise has been followed by all the parties until last month, Jxine 1995, when music publishers at the Pasadena hearing indicated they would send the Subcommittee a proposed amendment to Section 203 further delaying the 35 year termination period.
The differences between the 1964 and 1965 bills are as follows: (1) the 1965 bills permitted nonexclusive licenses to be terminated^^ ; (2) transfers of copyrights in wills were excluded from the termination right; (3) termination was limited to the author, or if he was deceased, his widow and children;"* (4) under Section 203, termination could be made only during a five year window commencing at the end of 35 years from the execution of the transfer;^' (5) the termination notice could be served not less than 2 or more than 10 years before the effective date of the termination, with recordation made a condition of the termination ;^° (6) where the author was deceased, the termination notice had to be filed by all those entitled to terminate;^^ (7)
^^ See Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on H.R. 4347 et al Before the Subcomm. on Courts. Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice of the House Judiciary Comm. . 89th Cong. , 1st Sess. 148-149 (1965); Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153, 17-176 (1985) . The compromise also involved amending the workfor-hire provisions in publishers' favor.
^'^ See H.R. 4347 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. REP. NO. 2237, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 12, 1966).
^^ The 1964 bills Were limited to exclusive licenses.
^^ The 1964 bills included legal representatives and legatees.
^' The 1964 bills permitted the termination to be filed at any time after the 35 years had elapsed.
^° The 1964 bills had the 2 year, but not the 10 year provision. They also required recordation with the Copyright Office, but did not state that the failure to record rendered the termination ineffective.
^' By contrast, the 1964 bills more liberally required only a "written notice."