Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism [LWN.net]

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 2:47 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
Parent article: Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

> The EU has a "use it or lose it" policy that allows creators to claw back their copyright if the work is not in use.

The US also has a clawback right, but it isn't "use it or lose it." It's "after 35 years, the creative can just take their copyright back, no questions asked." In practice, this is mostly used as a bargaining chip in exchange for better royalty payments on very popular items, but in theory, anyone whose work isn't considered "work for hire" can do it.

(See 17 USC 203 for post-1978 copyrights, 17 USC 304 for older copyrights.)

to post comments

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 10:35 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (6 responses)

So... someone who had contributed code under the GPL to some project can just terminate the licence in that window of time? (which seems to be a 5-year window that starts at about 35 years)?

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 12:17 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

I think you're confusing copyright SALE with copyright LICENSING.

Just because the author can reclaim the copyright, it doesn't (I hope) mean they can void any lawfully granted licences.

Cheers,
Wol

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 12:28 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)

The USC code NYKevin referred to is titled "Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author", and starts with:

"(a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

..."

Seems like licenses are included.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 22:03 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

But it doesn't seem to cover derivative works?

A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

Source

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 31, 2023 1:01 UTC (Fri) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

Indeed, not only does it include licenses in general, it includes licenses that explicitly forbid such termination:

> (5)Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

So you can't fix this by adding a clause to a future version of the GPL. You just have to accept the fact that people can take their copyright back. However, for larger projects, you can probably argue that it's a "joint work" and requires a majority, as other commenters have noted.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 12:31 UTC (Thu) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link] (1 responses)

there's some text in the law about how derivative works are protected, and joint grants/licenses require authors with a majority stake to agree, so it's at the very least not as clear cut as that

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 31, 2023 9:53 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

How does that work for a changeset though? The changeset has a specific copyright holder, even if also derived from the original work. It's not a joint-work till integrated - which requires the licence from the changeset contributor?

Interesting question anyway.