Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I understand how it could be considered a "limitation on personal freedom" since I believe termination requires action by the artist.

View on HN

The argument is that an artist can't sell a license to a new copyright guaranteed to last longer than 35 years, i.e. sell their termination rights for money up front. Any such wording is unenforceable today. Therefore, artists are limited in the manner which they may sell their own work.

Ah, I see. So even though you could still technically sell your rights and then never ask for them back, the law has made this effectively impossible because the buyer can't prevent you from doing so. Interesting.

The statute doesn't seem to limit the selling of derivatives, though... it seems to me that it would be quite straightforward for the artist to simply sell the copyright as well as a call option on the same copyright 35 years in the future. So artist really hasn't lost any rights.

The statute says that any agreement to grant a license which is made before the date of termination is invalid. That would certainly include an optional license.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com