Ultima's creator Richard Garriott is planning to win back the rights to his legendary RPG from EA with an 50-year-old copyright quirk

For 30 years, one of gaming's most influential designers has watched his magnum opus gather dust at a publisher he despises - now he's about to test a legal loophole that could force the industry to rewrite how it treats creator IP. Richard Garriott, the visionary behind the Ultima series, has publicly confirmed he is exploring a 50-year-old copyright termination provision to wrest control of his legendary RPG franchise from Electronic Arts. In a candid interview with Inside Games, Garriott expressed deep frustration with EA's handling of the series since he sold Origin Systems in 1992. But this isn't just a nostalgia play - it's a potential landmark case at the intersection of copyright law, software engineering, and creator rights.

Most developers know the surface story: Ultima (1979-1999) defined the Western RPG genre, introducing morality systems, open worlds. And player-driven narratives decades before those became industry standards. Garriott sold his studio to EA for a reported $35 million at the height of his career, expecting his creation would flourish under a bigger corporate umbrella. Instead, EA shut down Origin in 2004, effectively shelving the franchise. The last single-player Ultima game shipped in 1999; the MMO Ultima Online lives on as a cult title. But the single-player lore remains frozen.

What makes Garriott's new move different from earlier attempts to buy back the IP (which he tried and failed) is a specific provision in the US Copyright Act: termination of transfer under 17 U. S, and c§203. This law allows creators (or their heirs) to reclaim copyrights they assigned to publishers after 35 years - but only if the work qualifies as a "grant of transfer" and was created on a non-work-for-hire basis. For software, the lines are notoriously blurry. Let's explore into the technical, legal, and engineering dimensions of this story.

The 50-Year Copyright Quirk That Could Flip Industry Assumptions

Section 203 of the Copyright Act, enacted in 1976, gives creators a non-waivable right to terminate copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978. The termination window opens 35 years after the grant's execution - or, for grants involving publication rights, 35 years from the date of publication. For Garriott, the first Ultima games were published between 1979 and 1985, meaning the termination window for those titles opened years ago. The catch: termination rights apply only if the creator did not sign a work-for-hire agreement. If EA can prove that Garriott created Ultima as an employee (work-for-hire), the provision vanishes.

In the 1980s, Garriott operated Origin Systems as an independent entity. The games were authored by him and his team, then licensed to publishers (including Sierra On-Line and later EA after acquisition). However, after the 1992 sale, subsequent Ultima titles (e g., Ultima VIII: Pagan and Ultima IX: Ascension) were likely created under employment agreements. Garriott's strategy likely focuses on the earlier classic titles - games he designed as an independent creator, without a formal work-for-hire contract.

This isn't a hypothetical corner of law. In software, termination has been successfully used by authors of musical works and book authors. But software copyright termination remains largely untested. The 9th Circuit's FX Networks v. Fox Broadcasting (2022) clarified that termination rights apply to copyrights, not derivative works licenses - a nuance that could keep EA holding the rights to Ultima Online or Ultima Underworld even if Garriott reclaims the original games. For engineering teams, this case could set a precedent for how code ownership disputes unfold in tech M&A.

How Termination Rights Apply to Software: The Engineering Angle

Software copyright is unique because it spans multiple layers: source code, compiled binaries - audiovisual elements. And patentable algorithms. Under 17 U, and sC. §102(b), copyright does not extend to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery. " That means Garriott can't reclaim the concept of Ultima - only the specific expression in the code and assets. The termination would give him ownership of the copyrighted source code. But EA could still produce new games set in Britannia using different code, as long as they don't copy Garriott's exact expressions.

From a software engineering perspective, the real challenge is derivative works. And under 17 US. C. §203(b)(1), a derivative work prepared before termination can continue to be exploited after termination, but new derivative works require the creator's permission. However, the law remains ambiguous about what constitutes a "derivative work" in software. For instance, if EA had already coded an engine reusing original Ultima VII code, could they continue selling patches or compatibility fixes? Courts have rarely addressed such granular questions for video games.

Garriott's team will need to meticulously document the original authorship timeline, source code versions. And agreements. Tools like Git and Subversion weren't available in the 1980s - most early Ultima code was written in Assembly and C, stored on magnetic tapes. The lack of version control history will make it harder to prove that the code wasn't created under a work-for-hire contract. This is a cautionary tale for modern developers: every commit you make on a company-issued machine with a signed IP assignment agreement is evidence in a potential termination case decades later.

Why This Battle Matters Beyond Gaming: Lessons for Every Software Creator

The outcome of Garriott's termination bid could ripple through the entire tech industry. Countless independent developers, open-source contributors. And startup founders assign copyright to corporations without understanding the long-term implications. If Garriott succeeds, it could encourage other creators to explore termination rights for mobile apps, SaaS products. And embedded software written before 2010 (when the 35-year window opens). For instance, developers who contributed to early web frameworks like jQuery or React under corporate assignments might theoretically reclaim rights to their contributions - though the "work-for-hire" classification in employment agreements would complicate most claims.

One key difference between software and traditional art: the modular nature of code. A single modern application may include tens of thousands of lines from dozens of contributors, each with different assignment agreements. The Copyright Office's Circular 9 States that termination rights apply per author. But for joint works, a majority of authors must agree. For a game like Ultima VII, which had a team of about 15 developers, Garriott would need cooperation from key contributors - or proof that he was the primary author under a non-work-for-hire arrangement.

For startup engineers, the lesson is straightforward: negotiate clear IP retention clauses in your employment contracts. Many founders sign boilerplate assignment agreements without reading the fine print, assuming they retain control. The official text of §203 explicitly states that termination rights can't be waived or contracted away - but if a court labels your work as "work made for hire," the right evaporates. The distinction often hinges on whether you were treated as an employee (with benefits, taxes withheld) or an independent contractor (with creative control).

The Technical and Legal Hurdles Garriott Must Overcome

Assuming Garriott files termination notices for the original Ultima titles (which he reportedly intends to do soon), EA will likely counter with a work-for-hire defense. The burden of proof falls on EA to show that Garriott created the games as an employee or within the scope of his employment at Origin Systems. However, Origin was a separate legal entity controlled by Garriott - he was the CEO. And the games were developed under his direction. This arrangement typically falls under "independent contractor" status unless EA can prove that Origin was essentially an employee of EA at the time of initial creation (unlikely, since EA bought Origin later).

Another complication: international rights. Ultima was published worldwide. And US termination law doesn't apply to grants made in foreign jurisdictions. EA may retain rights to distribution abroad. Which could severely limit Garriott's ability to release remasters or new content globally. The Berne Convention's principle of national treatment would apply, meaning Garriott would need to file termination in each country - an expensive and logistically complex process.

Finally, there's the trademark hurdle. Even if Garriott reclaims the copyright to the game code, EA owns the trademark on "Ultima" for computer games. Under US law, trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they're used in commerce. EA has kept the trademark alive through Ultima Online subscriptions and occasional mobile re-releases. Garriott would likely have to license the trademark from EA - or rebrand any future game as something else (e g., "Britannia: The Lost Codex"). This is the same reason why System Shock 3 development stalled for years after rights battles: Nightdive Studios had to negotiate a separate trademark license from Tencent after acquiring the copyright from Otherside Entertainment.

A Blueprint for Other Creators to Reclaim Their IP

If you're an independent developer or former employee who believes you have termination rights to a product you created, here is the practical workflow based on current law:

• Identify the exact date of the grant (sale of copyright to publisher).
• Determine if the work qualifies as "not made for hire" - check your contract language and your classification (W-2 vs 1099).
• File a Notice of Termination with the Copyright Office within the statutory window (two to ten years before the termination date).
• Serve the notice to the current copyright holder (usually the publisher).
• Prepare for litigation: the publisher will almost certainly contest the termination, especially if the IP is valuable.

The Copyright Office provides official termination forms and guidance. But the process requires careful legal consultation. Most importantly, creators should act early: termination rights expire if not exercised within the 35-year window. For works created in the late 1990s (e g., early indie games), the window is now open.

Garriott's case also highlights the importance of source code preservation. Without access to original floppy disks and printed listings (common in the 1980s), proving authorship becomes difficult. The Video Game History Foundation has been instrumental in archiving such materials. But many early game sources are already lost. Developers today should archive their own code on personal repositories (e g, and, Git with proper metadata) to support future ownership claims.

The Intersection of Copyright and Code: Engineering Perspective

From a software engineer's vantage point, the concept of terminating copyright on code raises deeply technical questions. Code is inherently iterative: lines are copied, modified, and distributed across releases. The law treats each version as a separate derivative work. But in practice, modern development uses continuous integration. If Garriott reclaims the copyright to Ultima IV (1985), can he stop EA from selling digital copies of Ultima IV on GOG? Probably yes, under the exclusive reproduction right, and but what about patches released after terminationThe derivative work exception (section 203(b)(1)) might allow EA to continue selling existing patches. But not create new ones.

The inability to patch old games is a real concern for re-releases. Ultima games on modern operating systems rely on community patches like Exult (an engine reimplementation) to fix bugs and compatibility. If Garriott reclaims copyright, he could authorize such unofficial projects or create official remasters - but EA might argue that the re-implemented engines aren't derivative of the original code and are thus unaffected. This gray area is why many old games remain in legal limbo, with neither creator nor publisher willing to invest in preservation due to uncertain ownership.

Open-source licensing offers a parallel: the GPL's copyleft provision ensures that modified versions remain free but termination of copyright does not apply to open-source grants (they are considered non-exclusive licenses). The Ultima case could serve as a reference for how proprietary software copyrights are managed after corporate acquisitions, potentially encouraging more developers to choose permissive licenses like MIT or Apache 2. 0 to retain flexibility.

What This Means for the Future of Classic Games and Preservation

If Garriott wins, we could see a wave of remasters, sequels. And fan collaborations that were previously blocked by corporate neglect. The Ultima series pioneered features like a fully persistent open world, in-game virtue systems, and cross-game save transfers - ideas that are ripe for modern reinterpretation using engines like Unity or Unreal. A restored Ultima VII with updated controls, widescreen support. And optional co-op could easily find an audience among the 10+ million buyers of Divinity: Original Sin 2 and Baldur's Gate 3.

Conversely, a loss could cement EA's control and discourage other creators from pursuing termination. EA has deep pockets and a history of aggressive IP protection (e g., Star Wars: Battlefront exclusivity). The company might argue that termination rights disrupt the stability of software licensing, which relies on predictable ownership - a point the Copyright Office has acknowledged in its 2011 study on termination and software.

For the broader tech ecosystem, the most significant outcome may be increased legal clarity: if this case goes to a high court, it will define whether video games are treated more like movies (where work-for-hire is the norm) or more like literary works (where termination is common). The distinction will impact how venture capital firms structure IP ownership in game studios - and whether they can reliably acquire a studio's past catalog.

FAQ: Common Questions About Copyright Termination for Software

Can Richard Garriott reclaim the trademark for Ultima?

No. Copyright termination only applies to the copyrighted work (code, audiovisual elements). Trademarks are separate and require use in commerce to remain active. EA owns the "Ultima" mark for games and has kept it live through Ultima Online. Garriott would need to negotiate a license or use a different name.

Does termination cover games released after the original grant?

Only the specific works subject to the termination notice are reclaimed. For example, if Garriott terminates the grant for Ultima IV, EA still owns Ultima VIII (created after the sale). The termination applies per work, not per franchise.

What happens to existing digital storefront copies during the termination process?

Until the termination is finalized (which can