Section 203 Lets Authors End Certain Copyright Grants 35 to 40 Years After Signing

Section 203 of the U.S. Copyright Act lets authors end certain copyright grants decades after signing them. The right applies to grants an author executed on or after January 1, 1978. It works through a written notice, a fixed timing window and a recording with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The right applies notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Because the timing runs from the date a grant was executed (and, for publication grants, from the date of publication), those dates determine when rights can revert. This explainer covers who may terminate, when, how notice works, what happens to existing works after termination, and where the rules are contested.

Which Grants and Authors Fall Under Section 203

Section 203 covers grants of copyright made by an author on or after January 1, 1978, other than grants made by will. It does not apply to works made for hire. The statute text, as published by the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, covers transfers and licenses granted by the author.

For a single author, the termination right belongs to the author. If the author has died, it passes to the heirs or other owners of the author’s termination interest. The U.S. Copyright Office says that if the authors are not alive, the right may be exercised by a surviving spouse, children or grandchildren, or by executors, administrators, personal representatives or trustees.

Where there are several owners of termination interests, the notice must be signed by the number and proportion of them that the statute requires.

Worked Example From the Cornell Page
Under the Cornell text of 17 U.S.C. 203, a grant executed April 10, 1980, and published August 23, 1987, has a termination window that begins April 10, 2020. The notice is then served two to ten years before the effective date.

The 35-Year and 40-Year Timing Rules

In general, the termination window opens 35 years after signing and stays open for five years. In the general case, termination may take effect during a five-year period that begins 35 years after the grant was executed. The statute’s windows therefore run from year 35 through year 40.

For grants that cover the right of publication, the window begins at the earlier of two dates: 35 years after publication under the grant, or 40 years after execution. The Cornell text gives an example. A contract executed April 10, 1980, and published August 23, 1987, has a window that begins April 10, 2020, which is 40 years after execution. The example excludes April 10, 2015, which is 35 years after execution, and August 23, 2022, which is 35 years after publication.

The Cornell page’s other example covers a theatrical production contract signed September 2, 1987. Its termination could take effect between September 2, 2022, and September 1, 2027.

How Notice and Recording Work

The owners of termination interests must serve written notice on the grantee or its successor in title. The notice states an effective date inside the five-year window. It must be served not less than two years and not more than ten years before that date, and it must follow form and content rules set by the Register of Copyrights.

A copy of the notice must be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date. The statute says termination does not take effect without that recording. For the September 2, 1987 contract, Cornell gives the window start as September 2, 2022, but its notice example uses September 1, 2022 as the earliest date. For that date, notice must be served between September 1, 2012, and September 1, 2020.

The Copyright Office says notices may be served no earlier than 25 years after execution. For publication grants, the earliest service date is 30 years after execution or 25 years after publication under the grant, whichever comes first. The first possible service date was January 1, 2003. The rulemaking began with a notice of proposed rulemaking published December 20, 2002, followed by an interim regulation published December 23, 2002, effective January 1, 2003. The final regulation was published April 8, 2003, and took effect May 8, 2003.

What Reverts, and to Whom

On the effective date, all rights covered by the terminated grants revert to the author, authors and other persons owning termination interests, including owners who did not sign the notice.

A new grant of the reverted rights must be signed by the same number and proportion of owners as were needed to terminate, and it binds all owners, including those who did not sign. A new grant is valid only if made after the effective date, but the original grantee or its successor in title may negotiate an agreement for one once the notice is served, in the nature of a right of first refusal.

Termination affects only rights under the Copyright Act. It does not affect rights under other federal, state or foreign law. If termination is not effected, the grant continues for the copyright term unless the grant says otherwise.

In general, the termination window opens 35 years after signing and stays open for five years.

Derivative Works and Contract Terms

A derivative work prepared under the grant before termination may continue to be used under the grant’s terms after termination. That privilege does not extend to preparing other derivative works based on the copyrighted work after termination. Legislative notes on the Cornell page say a film could keep being licensed after termination, but remake rights would be cut off.

The statute says termination may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or a future grant. A contract term therefore cannot remove the right.

Gap Grants and the Salt-N-Pepa Dispute

Some grants were signed before 1978 for works created after that date. The Copyright Office concluded that these gap grants are terminable under Section 203. Its reasoning is that the grant’s execution date falls on or after January 1, 1978, as a matter of law, and that no copyright interest exists until a work is created. The Office agreed with many stakeholders that it would be beneficial for Congress to clarify the statute.

The Office’s termination page lists a notice of public inquiry dated March 29, 2010, and a proposed rule published November 26, 2010. That proposed rule would have clarified recordation practices, including recordation of pre-1978 grants for works not created before 1978. A final rule was published June 6, 2011.

A dispute concerns who counts as the author who executed a grant. Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York dismissed a request for declaratory relief from Cheryl James and Sandra Denton, the members of Salt-N-Pepa, in a decision dated January 8, 2026, according to Authors Alliance. The court read the phrase “executed by the author” to mean the plaintiffs could only terminate transfers they had signed. Authors Alliance says the producers signed the relevant grants, so the court found no termination claim against UMG.

The court did not decide whether the recordings were works made for hire. Authors Alliance argues that the ruling misreads subsections 203(a)(4) and (b)(4), which refer to a grantee’s successors in title. It warns that the reading would let a publisher defeat termination by inserting a new entity into the chain of grants. It also argues that authors are the initial copyright owners under Section 201(a), so the ownership analysis does not bear on termination.