Copyright Termination Rights Under Section 203

By Hank FasthoffJuly 4, 2026

An author who assigns a copyright or grants an exclusive license often does so early in the work's life, before the work's value is known. A songwriter may sign a publishing deal for a modest advance. A novelist may assign all rights to a publisher for a royalty that seems reasonable at the time. A recording artist who owns an interest in a sound recording may transfer that interest to a label in exchange for a record deal. Years later, the work may be worth far more than the parties anticipated, while the original grant continues to control the rights.

Congress addressed this problem in Section 203 of the Copyright Act. Section 203 permits authors to terminate qualifying copyright grants notwithstanding contrary contract language. The termination becomes effective during a statutory period of five years that generally opens 35 years after the grant was executed.

Which Grants Are Terminable

Section 203 applies to an 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, other than by will. Assignments, exclusive licenses, and nonexclusive licenses may all qualify.

Works made for hire are excluded. For an employee's work prepared within the scope of employment, the employer is the statutory author. A commissioned work qualifies only if it fits one of the statutory categories and the parties satisfy the requirement for a signed writing. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the individual creator didn't execute an author's grant that Section 203 permits the creator to terminate. Grants made by will are also excluded.

Separate provisions govern certain grants executed before January 1, 1978. Section 304(c) establishes a termination period of five years beginning 56 years after the copyright was secured or on January 1, 1978, whichever came later. Section 304(d) established an additional window for certain grants whose Section 304(c) period expired by October 27, 1998. That additional window is now closed. The Copyright Office identifies October 26, 2017 as the last date for serving a Section 304(d) notice and states that the notice had to be recorded before October 26, 2019.

Calculating the Termination Period

Termination may become effective during a period of five years beginning 35 years after the grant was executed. If the grant covers the right of publication, the period begins on the earlier of two dates, 35 years after publication under the grant or 40 years after execution.

For example, a grant executed on March 15, 1990 ordinarily becomes terminable on March 15, 2025. That termination period runs through March 14, 2030. If termination doesn't become effective within that period, the statutory opportunity under Section 203 expires. Section 203(b)(6) states that, unless and until termination becomes effective, the grant continues for the remaining copyright term unless the grant provides otherwise.

Notice Requirements

Termination requires advance written notice served on the grantee or the grantee's successor in title. Section 203(a)(4) requires service at least two years, but no more than 10 years, before the effective termination date stated in the notice.

For a termination effective January 1, 2027, the notice must be served on or after January 1, 2017 and on or before January 1, 2025. A notice served outside that period is untimely.

The notice must also satisfy the Copyright Office's requirements governing its content, signatures, and manner of service. Under 37 C.F.R. § 201.10(e), an error is harmless if it doesn't materially affect the adequacy of the required information. Harmless errors don't invalidate a notice, while other defects may prevent termination.

A copy of the notice as served must be recorded with the Copyright Office before the effective termination date. Timely recordation is a statutory condition of termination.

Early review is advisable because the service period may begin 10 years before termination. The analysis requires the correct execution and publication dates, the grant and rights being terminated, the current grantee or successor, and every required signature.

Who May Terminate

A living author may exercise the author's termination interest. If the author is deceased, Section 203(a)(2) allocates the interest among the surviving spouse, children, and grandchildren.

The surviving spouse owns the entire termination interest unless the author left surviving children or grandchildren. In that event, the spouse owns half, and the children and qualifying grandchildren divide the other half per stirpes. The persons who own and are entitled to exercise more than half of the author's termination interest may terminate the grant. If the author left no surviving spouse, children, or grandchildren, the author's executor, administrator, personal representative, or trustee owns the interest.

When two or more authors of a joint work executed the same grant, a majority of the authors who executed it must support the termination. If one of those authors has died, the persons entitled to exercise that author's interest act as a unit.

The result differs when joint authors execute separate grants. In Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis, No. 11cv1557 BTM(RBB), 2012 WL 1598043 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2012), the court held that a joint author who separately transferred his copyright interest could terminate that grant without the other joint authors.

Victor Willis, the original lead singer of the Village People, served a notice covering 33 compositions he coauthored, including "Y.M.C.A." and "In the Navy." His publishers argued that a majority of all joint authors who transferred interests had to join. The court rejected that interpretation because Willis alone executed the grants at issue. When multiple joint authors execute one grant, however, Section 203 requires a majority of those grantors. The structure of the original transaction therefore determines who must sign the notice.

Agreements to the Contrary

Section 203(a)(5) permits termination "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary," including an agreement to make a will or to make a future grant. A provision in the original assignment or license that requires the author to refrain from exercising Section 203 rights is unenforceable.

Section 203(b)(4) also limits agreements concerning the rights expected to revert. As a general rule, a further grant of those rights is valid only if made after the effective termination date.

The statute contains an exception for the original grantee or its successor in title. The terminating parties may enter a new agreement with that party after the termination notice has been served, even if the effective termination date hasn't arrived. This exception doesn't require the terminating parties to offer the rights to the original grantee or permit the original grantee to match another offer.

Section 101 controls work for hire status. For a commissioned work, the statutory definition requires an eligible category and a signed written agreement.

Contractual restrictions and transfers by operation of law present different questions. As the 2 Live Crew litigation demonstrates, a termination interest protected from contractual transfer may nonetheless become property of a bankruptcy estate.

Effect of Termination

On the effective date, the rights arising under Title 17 that were covered by the terminated grant revert to the author or the persons who own the termination interests. The author or statutory successors may then exploit those rights, license them to another party, or negotiate a new grant, subject to the derivative works exception and other applicable rights.

Section 203 affects only rights arising under the Copyright Act. It doesn't terminate rights arising under other federal laws, state law, or foreign law.

The parties may mutually terminate an existing grant before the statutory termination period. If the author then executes a genuine new grant, Section 203 applies to that new grant according to the relevant execution and publication dates. Whether an amendment, extension, or restatement starts a new termination calculation depends on whether the parties replaced the earlier grant under the documents and governing law.

The Derivative Works Exception

Section 203(b)(1) permits continued use of a derivative work prepared under the authority of the grant before termination. The continued use remains subject to the terms of the original grant. The exception doesn't authorize the preparation of new derivative works after termination.

For example, a studio that acquired rights in a novel and produced a film before termination may continue distributing that film under the original grant. The studio ordinarily needs a new grant to produce a sequel, remake, or other new adaptation based on the rights that reverted.

Music requires separate treatment of the composition and sound recording copyrights. When a terminated composition grant authorized the creation of a sound recording before termination, that recording may qualify as a pretermination derivative work. The exception doesn't independently authorize new recordings, remixes, or other derivatives after termination.

A different analysis applies when the terminated grant concerns the copyright in the sound recording itself. The existing master is the copyrighted work covered by that grant. Section 203(b)(1) applies only to a separate derivative work prepared under the grant's authority. A label relying on that exception must identify the particular derivative work, the grant that authorized it, and the uses permitted by that grant.

A translation or adaptation prepared under a publishing grant before termination may likewise remain in circulation. New translations or adaptations generally require authority from the persons who own the reverted rights.

Section 203 in the Music Industry

The first Section 203 terminations became effective in 2013, 35 years after the statute's January 1, 1978 effective date. Authors could serve the earliest notices in 2003 because Section 203 permits service as much as 10 years before the effective termination date.

Recording artists and songwriters have since used Section 203 to seek the return of interests in sound recordings and compositions transferred decades earlier. Disputes often concern authorship, work for hire status, grant execution dates, notice defects, and the identities of the persons authorized to terminate.

The 2 Live Crew litigation added bankruptcy law to that list. The group's four members entered an agreement giving their label the sound recording copyrights in five albums recorded between 1986 and 1989. In 2020, Luther Campbell, Mark Ross, and Christopher Wong Won's heirs served a termination notice. David Hobbs didn't join. Because four authors executed the grant, three valid termination interests were required.

A jury found for the group in 2024, including a finding that the recordings weren't works made for hire. The district court entered judgment recognizing the termination.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed on June 2, 2026. In Lil' Joe Records, Inc. v. Won, No. 24-13978, the court held that any termination interests Ross held entered his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). The interests had never been scheduled, administered, or formally abandoned. They therefore remained estate property under 11 U.S.C. § 554(c) and (d) when Ross signed the termination notice.

Ross lacked authority to exercise interests the estate continued to own. Without his signature, the notice represented only two of the four grantors and failed to satisfy Section 203's majority requirement.

The court limited its decision. It didn't decide how termination interests should be treated in every bankruptcy or what Ross's heirs must do before exercising those interests. It also assumed for its analysis that Ross held termination interests, rather than deciding whether the recordings were works made for hire.

A prior bankruptcy requires additional analysis when the author held the termination interest when the bankruptcy began. Relevant questions include the petition date, the grant date, the bankruptcy schedules, administration or abandonment of the interest, and any later orders affecting estate property. A bankruptcy filed before the termination interest existed doesn't present the same issue.

Practical Implications

Section 203 provides qualifying authors and their statutory successors another opportunity to control or renegotiate copyright rights after the work's commercial value becomes known. Exercising that right requires the correct termination period, timely service and recordation, an accurate description of the grant, and the necessary signatures.

For grantees, Section 203 establishes a future termination issue for qualifying grants executed by authors on or after January 1, 1978. Grants by someone other than the author, grants by will, works made for hire, rights outside Title 17, and grants executed before 1978 require different analyses.

Authorship and work for hire status should be addressed when the work is created. Catalog records should preserve the executed grants, publication dates, amendments, ownership changes, and notice information needed to calculate future termination periods.

Section 203(a)(5) governs despite contrary contract language. Whether a renegotiation starts a new termination calculation depends on whether the parties replaced the earlier grant. The statutory deadlines, notice requirements, ownership history, and authority of each signer ultimately determine whether a termination becomes effective.