Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Stutz wrote:
> > You could assign copyright of the work to the company that's selling
> > it, then have all contributors sign a work-for-hire contract.
>
> But be aware of what that means. Once you've signed a work-for-hire contract,
> the company owns all rights to your creations. That includes any revenue not
> included in your contract, and all creative decisions on the future of your
> creative work.
That's true and deserves to be hollered -- I would personally never
again sign a work-for-hire myself; I've done it in the past and was
burned to ashes every time ... even if the organization resolves to
"copyleft" the collective work, whatever _that_ means (if you're gonna
sign, this should be spelled out precisely), by having them the
copyright holder and not you, you've pretty much relinquished control
over your work. I think the Torvalds model is much better -- best to
let a human individual heading the project keep the copyright.
> I don't mean to be alarmist, but I grew up as a fan and practitioner
> of the art of comics, which at least here in the US is an industry
> with a long history of disgraceful treatment of its pioneering
> artists.
I don't think it's alarmist at all. I shoulda put a qualifier in my
last post -- not to let anyone think that I condone the practice of
work-for-hire. With corporate media you've pretty much got to go
work-for-hire if you want to play in their game; all pioneers all
artists are disgraced under that system by default.
