Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MAY 2020

Copyright Termination. Chapter 3: When Can Notice Of Termination Be Sent?

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Contributor
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Founded more than 40 years ago as a boutique law firm servicing the entertainment and arts...

View firm profile
Explore more from Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

In my last post, I discussed in general terms the timing requirements for when a grant can be terminated (i.e., when termination can be made effective). See Chapter 2 of this series here.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Edward Rosenthal
Edward Rosenthal
Author LinkedIn connections

In my last post, I discussed in general terms the timing requirements for when a grant can be terminated (i.e., when termination can be made effective).  See Chapter 2 of this series here.   Let's now turn to the question of when notice of termination must be sent.  Then, in Chapter 4, I will discuss what must be included in such a notice and how it must be sent and recorded with the copyright office. One piece of good news:  The notice of termination requirements are more or less the same for both pre- and post-1978 grants.  

Notice of termination must be given no more than ten years and not less than two years prior to the effective date of termination set forth in the notice.  Given that the termination windows (for both pre- and post-1978 grants) are five years long, this creates a 13-year period in which notice can be sent.   This may not seem intuitively obvious, but let me explain.  A notice of termination can be sent as many as ten years before the first

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

www.fkks.com

This post first appeared in Frankfurt Kurnit's Focus on the Data blog (www.focusonthedata.com). It provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

Amway To Pay $225 Million Over Alleged False Earnings Claims And Fabricated Sales

The FTC and Washington state secured a record $225 million settlement from Amway and affiliated groups over allegations they misled recruits about earnings potential while pressuring them to buy products with little retail opportunity. The complaint reveals that over three-quarters of U.S. product volume was sold to IBOs themselves rather than retail customers, with fabricated sales reporting masking the recruitment-driven model. The settlement's injunctive provisions establish new standards for earnings cl
United StatesConsumer Protection
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

Selling Company Data For AI Training: What To Know Before You Say Yes

AI developers are seeking new sources of training data, including internal operational data like Slack messages, emails, and company documents. Companies are now receiving offers to sell their workplace data, but such transactions raise complex legal questions around data rights, privacy commitments, employee protections, and long-term competitive risks that require careful evaluation before proceeding.
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

FTC Issues Guidance On "Price Transparency" For Auto Dealers

The Federal Trade Commission has issued new guidance requiring auto dealers to display transparent, all-inclusive pricing in their advertisements, mandating that the advertised price must be the actual amount any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The comprehensive FAQ addresses critical questions about how dealers should handle document fees, online pricing displays, representative photos, and responsibilities shared between dealers, third-party advertisers, and OEMs.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

Not Just A Selfie: The New BIPA Theory Aimed At Generative AI

Illinois resident Scott Wilson has filed a putative class action against xAI, alleging that its Grok chatbot violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing facial geometry scans when users upload selfies for analysis or editing. This case represents a significant expansion of BIPA litigation into the generative AI space, where multimodal models routinely process human faces as ordinary inputs without explicit biometric collection disclosures.
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

Hasan Piker Sues Scott Jennings For $72.5 Million

A high-profile defamation lawsuit tests the boundaries of free speech protections when political commentators manipulate video clips and fabricate quotes. As AI technology makes it increasingly easy to doctor content, this case could establish crucial precedent for how courts handle deliberately altered quotations and deepfake-style media manipulation in the digital age.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

California Legislation: End-Of-Session Check-In

California's legislature has sent a comprehensive package of privacy, AI, and advertising bills to Governor Newsom's desk, with decisions due by September 30, 2026. The legislation addresses sensitive personal information protections, data broker obligations, AI-powered chatbot regulations, and digital replica rights, potentially reshaping how businesses handle consumer data and automated decision-making systems. Will these bills become law and set new national standards for technology regulation?
United StatesPrivacy
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC