Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Peretti v. Authentic Brands Group, LLC, No. 21-2174-cv (May 4, 2022), affirming a district court decision dismissing an action for declaratory judgment.
The action was filed to address a dispute over ownership of rights in the copyright of the song “Can’t Help Falling In Love” (the “Composition”), written by Hugo Peretti and others. The surviving statutory successors to the late Hugo Peretti (the “Perettis”) sought a declaratory judgment that they had validly terminated a 1983 grant of rights in the renewal term of the copyright of the Composition (the “1983 Assignment”), which had been made to predecessors of Authentic Brands. Specifically, the Perettis asserted that 17 U.S.C. § 203 provided them with a limited right to terminate 1983 Assignment and that they had served a valid notice of termination. Authentic Brands moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, asserting § 203 did not apply because the 1983 Assignment was not a grant “executed by the author.” The district court dismissed the action. The Perettis appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that “[a]n execution of a transfer of copyright ownership ‘is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance . . . is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed.” 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). The Court further explained that the right to renew a copyright under the 1976 Copyright Act vests at the beginning of the renewal term, notwithstanding any transfer, assignment, or devise. Although Hugo Peretti’s signature appears on the 1983 Assignment, the Court explained that “he cannot have executed a grant transferring rights . . . that he did not hold” and that his signature transferred only his own contingent right to the renewal term. Because Hugo Peretti died in 1986 before his contingent right vested in 1989, the contingent rights held by his family members were the rights at issue. The Court concluded that those family members’ signatures on the 1983 Assignment are the only relevant ones and that, because the family members are not “the author” of the Composition, the limited termination right of § 203 does not apply. Accordingly, the Court held the district court properly dismissed the declaratory judgment action.