Ray Charles' Foundation Sues His Own Children In Copyright Fight
from the termination-can't-be-contractually-taken-away dept
The Ray Charles Foundation is now suing seven of his children for $3.5 million -- basically asking for their inheritance back -- after the children sought to terminate the copyrights on his songs and regain control over them. There's a bit of a backstory here. Apparently, before he died, Charles gathered a bunch of his children, and told them that he was leaving each of them $500,000 (and enough to cover the taxes on the money) if they signed agreements stating that was all they would get, and that they would not seek to get anything else from his estate. However, recently a bunch of the children have begun the process of terminating the copyright assignments over Charles' songs, and the Foundation is arguing this is a breach of that agreement.Now, my first thought upon reading the CNN article above is that this doesn't make much sense. We've been discussing copyright termination rights for a while, and one clear aspect of them is that you cannot contractually give up your termination rights. I would think that a contract that provided something that you lose if you exercise your termination rights would not be enforceable for that reason. If you haven't been following the details of the termination rights issue, under the 1976 copyright act, original creators can "terminate" the assignment of their copyright and basically reclaim it from whoever has it at the 35 year mark. Thus, musicians who signed record deals in 1978 (when the Act first came into effect) can start reclaiming their rights next year.
However, the details found in the actual lawsuit (pdf and embedded below) are a bit more complicated. First of all, as we've discussed at length, if the artist is considered to have done work under a "work for hire" agreement (and the terms of what counts for work for hire are very specific and go way beyond just saying it's work for hire), then termination rights do not apply. In this case, the Ray Charles Foundation is actually arguing that Ray Charles' agreement with Atlantic Records was a "work for hire" situation. This is a little strange. Normally, we see the record labels arguing that it was work for hire, but the artist or their heirs arguing it was not. In this case, however, since the Foundation is completely cut off from the heirs, it seems to be arguing in favor or a work for hire arrangement. Also, the reason why the 1976 Act's termination rights apply to works from before 1978 is a bit complicated, but it has to do with a new agreement that Charles made concerning his works in 1980.
If you find this all a bit confusing, you're not the only one. The Foundation notes that Charles' children aren't even sure which works can be terminated, and because of multiple copyright registration dates, they've been filing for termination on the same work multiple times:
The situation of the Ray Charles song "Mary Ann," is illustrative: Defendants have served a purported termination for a supposed January 23, 1955, transfer (supposedly to take effect on April 1, 2012), another purported termination for a supposed May 2, 1963, transfer (supposedly to take effect on May 3, 2019), and, because "Mary Ann" is an Assigned Composition under the 1980 Agreement, a third termination for a supposed transfer contained in this September 23, 1980, agreement (supposedly to take effect on November 15, 2015). Even if some of the terminations were deemed valid, it is still extremely difficult, if not impossible to determine when the copyright of the Assigned Compositions will change hands.Of course, I'm not so sure that's a reasonable excuse for ignoring termination rights altogether. Just because the labels and Charles may have had piss poor record keeping, people should just throw their hands up in the air and ignore termination rights?
Reading through this lawsuit really highlights just what a complete and total mess copyright law is, and how it's such a complicated mess due to the way it's been adjusted and changed over the years, that the system is really quite hopelessly broken. A situation like the one described above with multiple termination notices on the same song is just illustrative of the problem. Furthermore, while I'm not a fan of the concept of termination rights in general, this case could get interesting for being one (of many) testing challenges over whether or not artist agreements from decades ago were really "work for hire" situations -- and this is a case where the label isn't actually involved (right now). That makes it one worth watching.
Of course, there is a separate issue that hasn't been brought up yet, but I wonder if it will make an appearance at some point. In his book The Public Domain, James Boyle tracks down the true history of Ray Charles' classic song "I Got a Woman". What he discovers is that, contrary to what has been said before, the song was actually a copy of a song by the Bailey Gospel Singers called "I've Got a Savior" (whereas the common wisdom is that Charles was actually copying a public domain song "Jesus Is All The World To Me"). As Boyle discovered, "I've Got a Savior" is much much closer to "I Got a Woman". And that's at least somewhat problematic, since "I Got a Woman" came out just three or four years after "I've Got a Savior" (which itself borrowed heavily from other works). So, once could make an argument that "I Got a Woman" (which is one of the songs being disputed here) may have some fairly shallow copyrights on just the changes from that other song.
Of course, perhaps the larger point in all of this is that almost all of the songs being fought over should be going into the public domain about now. "I Got A Woman", for example, received its copyright on December 20th, 1954 -- at which point it would have been given a 28 year grant, renewable for another 28 years. As such it should have gone into the public domain in 2010. There are a bunch of other songs on the list that received their original copyright in 1955 and 1956 -- all of which should be going into the public domain right now, but are not. Perhaps that's the real issue that we should be focusing on: how the public has been completely robbed of these works, violating the promise made to the public in exchange for granting Charles and Atlantic Records that original copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: james boyle, public domain, ray charles, termination rights, work for hire
Companies: atlantic records, ray charles foundation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's about money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also.. since companies are considered people now and monetary donations are considered speech, copyright on a work is life of the author (the company) + X years... does the copyright never expire?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
Wow. Why you wouldn't want to leave your spouse/offspring an equal cut of everything?
I guess Ray just saw things a little different than I do.
I guess they just didn't see things eye to eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh, you weren't really saying that at all. You were trying to say it makes perfect sense for a god damn fucking company that's never created anything and never could to own copyrights after the actual artist is dead but somehow giving those rights to his children makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Termination rights
If termination rights cannot be contractually given up (i.e. they are a natural right), then can they be inherited, which is a form of transference? Wouldn't they evaporate upon the death of the natural holder of the right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Termination rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
"if you invest prudently"
I watched a co-worker lose close to 100,000 last year or so. When you come across a guaranteed investment that turns 500,000 into "set for life", please let the rest of us know.
A fair goal of 50-60K a year will set most responsible people up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright
What else is news?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This isn't some bleeding heart story about how removing termination rights hurts artists. This is a story about some greedy-ass spoiled brats trying to take something that doesn't belong to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not termination rights that they signed away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
I should say so. Ray didn't "see" much of anything.
(Sorry. I had to go there.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Okay, so let them have termination rights
However, that doesn't change the fact that exercising those termination rights now would be in violation of the contract that they signed in order to get the money in the first place. Remember, the contract never said "you transfer your termination rights away", it said "they wouldn't seek to get anything else from the estate". Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to consider such an exercise of termination rights to be a breach of contract (despite those rights never having been taken away), and it should be perfectly reasonable for the foundation to ask for all that money back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Okay, so let them have termination rights
Not quite. It's not that you can't *transfer* your termination rights, it's that you cannot *give them up* at all. If this contract does succeed in preventing them from enforcing their termination rights, then any and every record label will put a similar clause in their contracts that says "in exchange for this advance, you agree never to seek more... blah blah blah" and then they can claim no termination rights.
Termination rights can go to a spouse or children and that's basically it. And no one can contractually agree not to exercise them
Yes, that creates awkward situations like this one, but that's the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We're agreed that the idea of copyright surviving death is stupid.
He signed an agreement transfering the rights to the record company (most likely for a sizeable amount of money). This is money that the record company INVESTED.
If it's invested, Charles would have retained the rights. When I get an investment for my company, I still own and run the company, though I give up some equity position. Musicians give up the entirety of their copyrights. That's not an investment, that's a wholesale selling of their rights.
If anyone has termination rights it should be the record label which purchased the rights.
I'm afraid you don't seem to comprehend what termination rights are or why they exist. I would suggest doing a little research.
I personally agree that termination rights are pretty stupid, but you're arguing that record labels should get termination rights from themselves? Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can see if Ray Charles himself were to exercise his termination rights, but how could his children or his neighbors exercise something that can't be transferred away from Ray Charles himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What gets me
I mean its fine that the question of termination rights is confusing so let a judge or 9 figure it out, but for the foundation to come back with oh btw you owe us your inheritances.... well that is messed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I disagree. Copyright should have a predictable term. Death can be unpredictable, and there are a few cases in recent history of creators who died before publication or first public performance. Stieg Larsson and Jonathan Larson come to mind, though possibly because they have the same surname. It would be very difficult for the publishers/producers if those works entered the public domain at the moment of death, since death occurred at some point between when the works were first put in tangible form and the date of first publication/performance. This seems contrary to the purpose of copyright.
It's far more sensible to set a fixed copyright term, starting at the date when the public can first access it. If the creator dies within that fixed term, it shouldn't matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
You're kidding, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I can see if Ray Charles himself were to exercise his termination rights, but how could his children or his neighbors exercise something that can't be transferred away from Ray Charles himself?
Who said anything about neighbors?
If I remember correctly, termination rights can ONLY be exercised by the original creator, their spouse, their children or grandchildren. If *none* of those *exist* then they can be exercised by an estate manager. But if any of them exist, then those are the only ones who can terminate. And that's it. The Foundation cannot terminate. But the children can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
Given average rates of return on conservative investments the best you could expect to get annually is 2%-4%. So that gives you $20,000 per year before taxes.
But lets say you get a full 10% return after taxes so you have $50,000 per year. That may seem like a decent amount, but it doesn't take into consideration two things. Skyrocketing medical costs and inflation.
On the medical side of things someone in their 40's or 50's can easily need to pay $10,000 to $12,000 a year for good medical insurance. And this is just for one person. Insuring a family of four as an individual can easily top $20,000 per year.
On the inflation side, if you follow historic trends, that $50,000 per year will only be worth $40,000 in ten years. In twenty years it will be the equivalent of only $30,000.
People just don't realize how much money you would really need to live decently for the rest of your life. Most financial planners these days say you need 1 to 2 millions dollars to retire, and that assumes you are also getting medicare and social security.
So while $500,000 is a nice chunk of change the best it does is by you a nice house these days. It will not support you and your family for the rest of your life. Unless of course you are only going to live another 5 years or so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
a)last 50 years
b)return at least 10% a year, guaranteed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Way back in 1979 when they changed the copyright law, they retroactively extended all existing copyrights to life + 50 years from their original date of copyright, or some such. Then along came the Sonny Bono copyright extension just as Dizney's copyright on Micky mouse was about to expire, making everything copyright for an extra 20 years, and with today's corpocracy controlling everything from electrons to galaxies we can expect it to get extended again every time some big corporate copyright is about to expire.
So forget about the public domain. All you have in there is stuff whose copyrights expired before 1979 or whenever the law was changed. And if the copyright maximilists have their way, they'll see to it that they will recapture everything in the public domain all the way back to Julius Caesar, and in any event see to it that nothing currently under copyright ever does enter the public domain. Unless someone willingly donates something to it.
[sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
With 500k, I could pay off all debt and own my property outright (so that most of my monthly outgoings disappear), and chase a few dreams while still having plenty (more than half) left over to invest. Sure, I wouldn't be able to retire and live like a king, but I wouldn't piss it away in 8 years either. The rest of my life would be guaranteed to be far more comfortable than my current future.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "set for life", but $500k is plenty for most people - that's more than 10 years income if you earn the median wage in the US. You wouldn't be able to do everything you'd like with that money, or quit your job to live in a palatial mansion, but you'll be pretty well off if you don't squander it or demand a lifestyle beyond it. Most people would be quite happy with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WOW what a POS Ray Charles must have been.
Maybe he is trying to teach his children to work hard and earn a living instead of feeling entitled to his life work.
They should blame their moms who slept with Ray Charles knowing that he was married. I am willing to bet that these women went out of their way to get pregnant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adams and Ray's Children
Third that guy Adams is old as dust so what could he possibly do with the money, apparently he was a money hungry person and control freak because all the people that worked with the foundation was fired or quit after Ray died..hmmmm strange. so if Mr.Adams die..then who runs things...??? Adam's kids or grand kids? I do music and have over 185 songs in my music catalog and I wouldn't left all to a foundation when i have 12 kids, that sounds like a dead beat dad to me, i would give the rights half to the kids and half to the foundation. Ray was a smart businessman who got 100% of his masters and 75 cent on a dollar, why would he rip his kids off. Now what i would've done was had them work the music catalog or even work in the foundation and if they didn't then they would forfeit their rights. remember they had the meeting for a reason and last but not least..............Know that the other two children wasn't even in the meeting so what type of deal or money did they get and i don't think they would scrap over their dad's money huh they didn't even know each other well as brothers and sisters but they now are fighting for what's right together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
his mother was very hard on him
she wanted him to learn and do things himself to learn to be independent
Ray Charles did a lot of selfish things but in the same way he works very hard for four things she had
I think Ray Charles was very generous to give his children 500,000 I guess it is a lesson for his children to know you have to work for things to get what you want
[ link to this | view in thread ]