Andrew Koenig wrote: > "Robert Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Andrew Koenig wrote: > >>>I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years >>>ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own >>>everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a >>>written >>>agreement to the contrary. >> >>The US Copyright Office does not agree with you. >> >> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf > > Well, it comes pretty close to agreeing with me--the only issue is whether > the definition of "employee" extends beyond the notion of "W-2 employee" and > that issue is not really relevant to the original posting.
Yes it is given that the OP is "technically" a contractor. But it does flatly contradict what you wrote since it specifically states that there are classes of "employee" for the "work made for hire" doctrine that go beyond the "W-2 employee" definition. There was no such law that made the distinction that you did. > Here's the relevant quote: > > If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition > applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire. > Important: The term "employee" here is not really the same as the common > understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee > under the general common law of agency. This is explained in further detail > below. Please read about this at "Employer-Employee Relationship Under > Agency Law." If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, > someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then > the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the > statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only > if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the > nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is > a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work > made for hire. That's not the relevant quote. The relevant quote comes from the part that "explain[s] in further detail below" about the factors laid down in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. > The reason I say that the distinction between W-2 employment and agency > employment isn't really relevant is that in the kind of situation we're > talking about, there is generally a written agreement specifying scope and > nature of work. Stop guessing. > So I'll amend my statement slightly: > > If someone pays you to produce a specific piece of work, or you're an > employee, any work you do for hire belongs to your employer. Otherwise, > it's yours unless there's a written agreement to the contrary. You can't use the phrase you're trying to define in the definition. > I think that's a fair paraphrase of the paragraph I cited. If you disagree, > please say why. I disagree because it's a complicated bit of law that can't be boiled down to two sentences. There are lots of tests a judge might apply and none of them are of the form, "if the conditions are such-and-such then the work is made for hire, otherwise not." This is not a guessing game for laymen. This is an area for lawyers. If I have one bit of advice for anyone reading this thread, it is this: Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
