On 2 Nov 98, Eric Poole wrote:
> > (However, there have been diverging legal decisions as to whether this
> > agreement must be in the form of a specific written *contract* or not.
>
> Didn't CCNV vs Reid clear that up, and establish that there had to be a
> written contract or agreement?
Well... my understanding of CCNV vs Reid (with the usual "but I'm not a
lawyer" disclaimer attached) is that it clarified the nature of an employee-
employer relationship, rather than the specific issue of what constitutes a
binding work-for-hire contract instrument.
This 1989 case involved an artist (Reid) who provided artwork for a non-
profit organization, the Community For Creative Non-Violence (CCNV).
CCNV claimed that it owned the rights to Reid's work because he had been
an "employee" of the organization for the duration of his work on the
project. The US Supreme Court disagreed, noting among other things that:
1. Reid was engaged in a skilled occupation;
2. He supplied his own tools;
3. He worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from CCNV in
Washington, D.C.;
4. He was retained for a relatively short period of time;
5. He had absolute freedom to decide what hours he worked in
order to meet his deadline;
6. He had full discretion as to the hiring and paying of
assistants;
And so on. In any event, the statutes and case law make it pretty darn
clear that a self-employed creative worker does not give up copyright of
original material he creates for a client *unless* he signs some sort of
instrument that explicitly defines the relationship as a work-for-hire one
