jessmine-shutterstock-com
4 August 2015Copyright

Ray Charles Foundation wins right to oppose copyright termination notices

The Ray Charles Foundation (RCF), a non-profit group set up by the late jazz singer, has been granted the right to oppose notices filed by his children that seek to terminate copyright granted to 51 of his songs.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Friday, July 31, that attempts by seven of the singer’s children to terminate copyright grants for the works, to which music label Warner/Chappell owns the rights, cover the RCF’s “zone of interests”.

At the centre of the dispute is a 1980 agreement between the singer and Warner/Chappell’s predecessor Progress Music that handed the label the copyright to the songs in exchange for royalties.

The RCF was established by Charles, who was blind, six years later to provide educational scholarships to blind, deaf and underprivileged young people. It is not connected with his surviving family.

In 2002, Charles signed a deal with all 12 of his children that saw them waive any right to his estate’s royalties in exchange for a $500,000 trust.

After Charles died in 2004, he named the RCF in his will as the beneficiary of some of the royalties to his works, but all the copyright stayed with Warner/Chappell. The royalties provided the sole income stream for the RCF.

But in 2010, seven of Charles’s children filed termination notices against the copyright grants bestowed to Warner/Chappell.

The songs at the centre of the termination notices include “I got a woman” and “A fool for you”.

Under the US Copyright Act, the family of the original author’s works can try to terminate a copyright grant.

However, such a right does not apply to works made for hire, defined as “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment”.

In March 2012, the RCF filed a lawsuit opposing the termination notices, alleging that a termination would be an “injury to itself” and that copyright ownership is not a “prerequisite for challenging a termination notice”.

The RCF also argued that the works were made for hire and therefore are not covered by the act.

In 2013, the US District Court for the Central District of California said that the termination notices do not cover the RCF’s “zone of interests” and therefore it lacked the legal standing to challenge Charles’s children.

But the ninth circuit reversed the ruling, stating that the termination notices “fall within the [RCF’s] statutory zone of interests” and that it has the right to challenge them.

But the court said there remains a question over whether the works were made for hire and are therefore precluded from being subject to a termination notice.

Neither the RCB nor Marc Toberoff, partner at law firm Toberoff & Associates and representing the seven children, had responded to a request for comment at the time of publication, but we will update the story should either party get in touch.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk