Court Opinion

ID: 9482458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:51:17.407036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:00.935843
License: Public Domain

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent based on the plain language of the statute and the legislative history of the 1870 Copyright Act.
The language of 17 U.S.C. § 304(a) is clear: An author is “entitled to a [renewal term] when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made....” (emphasis added). Thus, on its face, the statute provides that renewal rights vest upon the filing of an application for renewal. Unless the legislative history clearly indicates to the contrary, this court should abide by the plain meaning of the statute. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1213 n. 12, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987); Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir.1991).
The legislative history is devoid of any detailed discussion concerning the vesting of renewal rights. However, when adopting the 1870 Act, Congress did not retain the language of the 1831 Act which expressly required the author to survive until the beginning of the renewal term. See Dorothy M. Schrader, Vesting Date of the Renewal Copyright Interest, 19 Bull. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 282, n. 18a, 283-84 (1972) [hereinafter Schrader], An express requirement of such survivorship has never been reinstated in the statutory language. Id. at 284; see 17 U.S.C. § 304(a). The deletion is not discussed in the legislative history. Schrader, supra, 277, 284. The obvious conclusion is that Congress deleted the language to make it clear that registration vests the renewal rights.
The majority contends that the legislative history of the 1909 Act indicates Congress did not intend to change the substantive law when it adopted the 1870 Act. The majority cites to Professor Nimmer’s conclusion that there is “no indication of [a Congressional] intent to depart from [the survivorship requirement].” 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, The Law of Copyright 119.05[C], at 9-60 (1990). To support his conclusion Nimmer relies upon the Supreme Court’s general statement in Fisher Co. v. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. *477643, 63 S.Ct. 773, 87 L.Ed. 1055 (1942) that the renewal provisions of the 1909 Act were intended by Congress to continue the renewal structure as it existed under prior copyright laws. Id. Such reliance is misplaced.
The Fisher court based its conclusion on an extensive analysis of the statutory history leading up to the 1909 Act. In particular, the Court relied heavily on language of a House Committee Report stating that the law should be framed “as is the existing law.” Fisher, 318 U.S. at 654, 63 S.Ct. at 778. This analysis, however, was undertaken for the sole purpose of determining whether an author may assign his renewal expectancy. As a result, the Court did not consider the Act of 1870. It did not need to consider that Act because there was no departure in it from the Act of 1831 on the issue of assignability of the renewal expectancy. Schrader, supra, at 297. Thus, the Court never considered Congress’ deletion of language requiring survival until commencement of the renewal term. Id. As the Supreme Court made clear in Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 1759 n. 2, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990), Fisher was silent concerning the time of vesting.
The majority also relies upon a statement made by a publisher, Mr. Hale, during the legislative hearings on the 1909 Act. The Supreme Court quoted this statement in Stewart, 110 S.Ct. at 1759. The Stewart court included the statement as part of a general discussion involving the effect of an author’s death prior to the renewal period, an issue long before decided in Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U.S. 373, 80 S.Ct. 792, 4 L.Ed.2d 804 (1960). Id. 110 S.Ct. at 1759. Hale’s statement was cited as supporting Miller:
The legislative history of the 1909 Act echoes this view: “The right of renewal is contingent. It does not vest until the end [of the original term]. If [the author] is alive at the time of renewal, then the original contract may pass it, but his widow or children or other persons entitled would not be bound by the contract.”
Id. (quoting 5 Legislative History of the 1909 Act, part K, p. 77 (E. Brylawski & A. Goldman eds. 1976) (statement of Mr. Hale)) (alterations made by the Court).
The passage is misleading for several reasons. The bracketed language “of the original term” was added to the quote by the Supreme Court in Stewart. In pertinent part, the actual statement reads: “The right of renewal is contingent. It does not vest until the end.” 5 Legislative History of the 1909 Act, part K, p. 77 (E. Brylawski & A. Goldman eds. 1976) (statement of Mr. Hale). Nowhere in his statement does Mr. Hale define “end.”
Hale made the statement before a joint Senate and House committee which was considering various proposals for revising the copyright laws. He was arguing that composite works should be exempted from the renewal provisions. Id. at 76-78. He was not addressing the issue of when renewal rights vest. In fact, there is not a single discussion concerning the vesting of renewal rights anywhere in the legislative history of the 1909 Act.
Further, in a footnote to the passage, the Supreme Court in Stewart expressly stated it had never “decided the question of when renewal rights vest” and that it had “no occasion to address the issue here.” 110 S.Ct. at 1759 n. 2. In light of the above considerations, Mr. Hale’s statement is of little value.
Finally, the majority relies upon Ringer’s broad statement that “there is no indication that any change was considered or even suggested” by the drafters of the 1870 Act. This statement is part of Ringer’s one-sentence discussion of the 1870 Act. Barbara A. Ringer, Renewal of Copyright (1960), reprinted as Copyright Law Revision Study No. 31, prepared for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 105, 111-12 (1961) [hereinafter Ringer]. Ringer does not discuss the deletion of the language requiring survivorship until the renewal term. In any event, as the majority concedes, Ringer concludes that vesting occurs upon application for renewal. Id. at 186 (“[a]s soon as a valid renewal claim is registered, the renewal is ‘vested in interest’ — that is, there is a ‘present fixed right of future enjoyment.’ ”)
*478The fact of the matter is that the majority of commentators who have directly addressed the time of vesting issue support the view that renewal rights vest upon timely application for renewal. See Frederick Music, 708 F.Supp. at 591-92 (comparison of commentators); see also Seymour M. Bricker, Renewal and Extension of Copyright, 29 U.S.C.L.Rev. 23, 26 (1955). The two most comprehensive studies both reach this conclusion. Ringer, supra, at 186; Schrader, supra, at 302-05.
Because no persuasive legislative history exists to the contrary, we should follow the plain meaning of section 304(a). On its face, the statute provides for the vesting of renewal rights upon the proper filing of an application for renewal. I think the statute means what it says. I would leave to Congress the decision whether to amend it.