Re: Recent Amendment re: Software as Work Made for Hire?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Rich Stim <rwstim[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/00, Mike Phillips <mfslaw[_at_]mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone see this definition change as significant?
>
> Absolutely. It makes it much more difficult for musicians to reclaim
> rights to sound recordings. See Geoffrey Hull's article "Copyright
> Act Amendment Seen As Blow to Artists' Sound Recording Rights" --
> Entertainment Law & Finance Jan 2000.

How does the change make reclamation much more difficult? There still has to be a written agreement under (2). If musicians want to keep their rights, they should be careful what they sign. I don't have the article yet, so maybe my question will be answered there. A savvy "employer" who would be the beneficiary of a work as a work made for hire under (2) could get the same effect by having musicians execute a document containing an automatic assignment at time of creation clause.

Asked another way, what is the most likely scenario where the musician will get a raw deal as a result of the definitional change?

I have and use your book, by the way.

Mike Phillips
<mfslaw[_at_]mailandnews.com> Received on Wed Feb 02 2000 - 01:48:29 GMT