Document: 362 U.S. 373 80 S.Ct. 792 4 L.Ed.2d 804 MILLER MUSIC CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.CHARLES N. DANIELS, INC. No. 214. Argued Feb. 24, 25, 1960. Decided April 18, Mr. Julian T. Abeles, New York City, for petitioner. Milton A. Rudin, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, a music publisher, sued respondent, another infringement petitioner's rights through one Ben Black, as coauthor, in renewal copyright song 'Moonlight and Roses.' Respondent's motion summary judgment was granted, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 188, Court Appeals affirmed by divided vote. 2 Cir., 265 F.2d 925. The case is here on petition writ certiorari which we granted. 361 809, 77, 58. facts are stipulated. Black Charles Daniels composed assigned it to Villa Moret, Inc., secured original copyright. Prior expiration 28-year term, petitioner his this consideration certain royalties sum $1,000. had no wife or child; next kin were three brothers. Each them executed like assignment expectancy These assignments recorded office. Before copyright, died, leaving widow child. His will contained specific bequest concerning residuary estate left nephews nieces. One brothers qualified executor renewed further term 28 years. probate court decreed distribution legatees. Respondent then obtained from them. 3 question decision whether statute accrue spite prior testator. Section 23 Copyright Act 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, now 17 U.S.C. § U.S.C.A. after stating that 'the proprietor such shall be entitled extension work twenty-eight years,' goes provide: 'That * author work, if still living, widow, widower, children author, not author's executors, absence will, years when application have been made office duly registered therein within year copyright.' An an before expires valid against world, alive at commencement period. Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons, 318 643, 63 773, 87 L.Ed. 1055, so holds. It also clear, all questions apart, go executor, absent Fox Film Corp. Knowles, 261 326, 43 365, 67 680, 5 Petitioner argues executor's right under can defeated If claimants, concededly could bar For they among those whom 24 has granted right, irrespective lifetime any it. See De Sylva Ballentine, 351 570, 76 974, 100 1415. concedes—and see rational escape conclusion—that where dies intestate period children, obtain free claim founded upon lifetime. results follow because invalid but he only assign;1 death, period, terminates interest vests named classes. itself exist reason derived solely directly 6 We fail difference statutory scheme between widows, widowers, hand executors other. hierarchy people first, living; second, she third, her fourth, kin. True, these disparate interests. Yet Congress saw fit treat alike. seems clear us, example, force died intestate, would take assignee right. its wisdom expressed preference group living. By placed same preferred position, unless refashion suit other policy considerations. Of course usually takes representative capacity. He 'represents person testator' supra, page 330, 366, states. And normally means testator contracts, cum onere. true, pointed out 'it novelty' 'to given exercised while lived.' renew independent time death. What done create contingent rights. provided that, arrives, special rules derogation usual succession apply benefit classes (1) children; (2) (3) think redesign held classes, do acquire rights, there assignment, though Certainly 329—330, states what done, either others may do. Holmes speaking said: 7 'No doubts Carleton applied did, mentioned alongside with suggestion proper persons, anyone, make claim, cannot whenever might come executors. Surely again had.' 8 legislative history supports view: 9 'Instead confining dead, provide renewal, or, intention permit administrator who bequeath renewal.'2 10 category persons therefore cut down reduced us reflects, consistent expectancies until arrives. When pass four listed according then-existing circumstances. Until assignees risk acquired never vest their assignors. A purchaser deprived nothing. Like purchasers interests, subject possibility contingency occur. ineffective, death woman widow. Examples multiplied. said enough, however, indicate symmetry logic design 24. Whether works times injustice matter Congress, us. 11 Affirmed. 12 HARLAN, FRANKFURTER, WHITTAKER, STEWART join, dissenting. 13 I agree decision, copyrighted fruits purchase—a purchase which, must assume, good faith fairly agreed upon.1 While, appears, contemplated defeat effect enable sold during transaction deliberate subsequent will. 14 inter vivos protect himself unjust result obtaining acquires status Nor assurance success seek secure everyone expected fortunate legatee. In consequence, efficacy good-faith attempt accomplish lasting conveyance hereafter depend particular transaction, law whichever State ultimately govern matter, deemed contract such. resulting uncertainties construction, validity, mode enforcement transactions laws various States need hardly spelled out. unsettling, indeed impair marketability should reached language evident purpose compels Far resting considerations, supported parlaying ill-considered 'concession' counsel exaltation literal 'symmetry logic' (80 796) over me more penetrating inquiry into congressional aims revealed. 15 convenience quote Act, again: 16 On face, section manifests deal problem priority section. discussion House Report quoted Court, 795, likewise shows advertence question, referred significant score. Hence, resolve light disclosed structure provision. basis write clean slate. argued provisions demonstrated determination beneficiary spendthrift trust.' Brief petitioners, 327, O.T.1942, p. 36. finding support evolutionary legislation structure, rejected view, could, validly assign having not, arrival year, regard entirely inapplicable situation where, here, survived beginning year. But conferred administrators,' little doubt control require reversal. important then, determine extent seen depart ordinary succession. reaching conclusion, has, think, overlooked critical distinctions different clauses statute. 18 evolution exhaustively described analyzed Fisher, recanvassed here. 574—576, 976—977, Briefly, clause regarding originated 1831 436, dealing added 1081. retention, latter date, provision position amended statute, taken expressive desire them, words 'preferred class,' ensure confer benefits term. Cf. 582, 980. anomalous say convey permitted Hence 'compulsory bequest,' ibid., effective 19 perceive applicability reasoning executor. There simply warrant him way class.' manifestly object solicitude, since nothing beneficially, fiduciary benefited As latter, legatee person, corporation, association capable taking property bequest. infer concern protection whosoever, large indeterminate class potential legatees, prove fact chosen author. merely renewal.' H.R.Rep. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 15. gave full even occurred first beyond purpose, anything issue Film, read legatees claims 20 Court's treatment especially curious. With authority than appears demonstrably unnecessary counsel,2 regards 'clear' assignee. From dubious premise, reasons being thus surrounded 'hierarchy rights' whose superior assignee, 'placed position.' This reasoning, submit, ignores evidenced whatever supposing sought protected loss arising acts, sense widows were. obvious kin, related—albeit often distantly3—to another—even total stranger. 21 apparent protecting defeasance expectancy. Its limited. Having determined despite without surviving spouse child public domain, failure leave bring about. give rather administrator, well due save authors' estates—which infrequently contain asset substance—the expense going administration. Be may, abundantly intended. 22 To construe 'refashion' it, appraise competing indicated manner interests involved dealt dynamic, static syntactical, logic. Consistently rest voluntary them; care desires leads contrary result. departed succession, accord, noted, modern trends precluding disinheritance children. failing heed limits departure, foster disruptive undermining sales value immediate family impinges very designed protect. reverse. Spring, Risks Rights Publishing, Television, Radio, Motion Pictures, Advertising, Theatre (2d rev. ed. 1956), pp. 94—95; Ball, Law Literary Property (1944), 243; Ladas, International Protection Artistic (1938), Vol. II, 772. Shafter, Musical 1939), 177. S.Rep. 1108, Today less decided, 'can unmindful authors themselves devised safeguarding interests.' Id., 657, 779. More particularly sale improvident. difficult understand why publisher content rule preferring kin—who ordinarily reasonable accuracy assignor's lifetime, purchased, instance—and similar principle unworkable. practical considerations relieve duty construing itself. Our reference DeSylva case, 980, 'family' family, related, however remotely,

Category: 7