Ray Charles planned ahead and gave each of his 12 children $500,000 in trust as their inheritance and required a release of any future claims against his estate. What he didn’t plan on was his heirs (children) exercising their ability under the U.S. Copyright Act to file notice of termination of the copyright assignments for Charles’ songs and reclaim those revenue streams. Charles left the bulk of his estate, including his copyright assets, to The Ray Charles Foundation for the benefit of hearing and seeing impaired persons.
There are two schemes for termination of copyright grants under the U.S. Copyright law and they arise from works created and published pre or post January 1, 1978. Ray Charles’ wrote songs and signed copyright assignments falling into both categories, which makes this a very rich fact pattern. The specific timing requirements for the notices are covered in detail here.
In a legal opinion focused primarily on the applicability of California’s Anti-Slapp statute, you’ll find some great nuggets on the intersection of estate planning and copyright law.
1. A copyright grant termination notice is not “a claim against the estate” if probate on the estate has closed. Which raises the questions: what if probate is still pending? or probate never occurred and the window of time under state law probate proceedings has past? or filing a notice of termination would be timely while probate is pending? or the heirs must file the termination notices before the probate proceedings end to fall with the notice window?
2. If copyrights were created as “Works for Hire” then the copyrights were never part of the author’s estate and filing the notice of termination could not be a claim against the estate. Of course, no heir wants to argue “work for hire” because anything created as a work for hire does not have a right of termination.
3. A termination right is inalienable because under the statute, “termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or a future grant.” Does this mean there is no way for an author to control post-death what happens to his/her copyrights?
The opinion in this case was rendered in early 2013. While notice of an appeal was filed, there has been no additional recorded court activity. I suspect The Ray Charles Foundation and the heirs are entering into some form of negotiation. Which leads to Part 2 of this post (coming soon) which addresses why The Ray Charles Foundation needs the Charles’ heirs to maximize the value of the Foundation.
I’ve written numerous times about heirs reversing an estate plan via their statutory rights granted under the U.S. Copyright Act in relationship to Renewal of Copyright and Termination of Copyright Grants. Read more here, here, and here.
Applicable code sections: 17 U.S.C. 203, 304.
Case cite: The Ray Charles Foundation v. Robinson, 2:12-cv-02725-ABC-FFM, (USDC Cal. 2013).