When companies hire independent contractors to provide services that include the creation of content—whether it’s code, copy, video, or music—the question of the mechanism to transfer ownership of the deliverables must be considered. Should it be as a “work made for hire,” or should it be done through an assignment of rights?

At first glance, “work made for hire” may seem like the better option—it puts the company in the position of being the effective creator of the work, and, as such, the company owns the work from the start and forever. But it’s not always that simple.

Under U.S. copyright law, only certain types of works qualify as “works made for hire.” These categories are specifically listed in Section 101 of the Copyright Act. If the type of work you’re contracting for fits within one of these categories, and the agreement clearly says it’s a work made for hire, then ownership can vest with the company automatically.

But if the work falls outside those categories—or if the company is concerned about employment law implications that can arise from asserting a work is made for hire in some states (as discussed in more detail here)—then it may opt for ownership by an assignment of rights. That’s a straightforward contract provision where the contractor transfers ownership of the work to the company. While often the only (or best) choice, assignments carry one unique limitation that is important to understand.

Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, the original creator assigning its rights has the right to terminate that assignment after 35 years. In many situations, this doesn’t matter since many projects have a much shorter shelf life.

But in other cases, it matters a lot. Think of recorded music, which can stay popular for decades and remain “in print” indefinitely once posted on streaming platforms. While musical recordings aren’t on the list of works eligible for “work made for hire” treatment, things get murkier when the music is created for a motion picture or part of a collective work (which are eligible categories).

In a recent lawsuit involving a dispute over the termination of assignments of music rights as described in the linked article, the outcome will hinge on whether the company has a valid claim that the works were made for hire in order to prevent the artists from reclaiming their rights. Based on what’s been made public, it’s hard to see a valid basis for the company to refuse to honor the artists’ termination notice, but there may or may not be more to the story.

If your company is acquiring rights in deliverables from a contractor, it’s essential to understand not just how you’re getting the rights, but how long you’ll get to keep them. That 35-year termination right may never come into play, but if it does, it should not be a surprise and should have been accounted for well in advance.