Re: ownership of original oil painting

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 07:35:41 -0800

On 3/10/00, Carol Shepherd <shepherd[_at_]arborlaw.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Eric Stevens <estevens[_at_]poynerspruill.com> wrote:
> >
> > It was clearly understood that Client was buying the right to copy
> > the work for use on the cover of magazines, distribution on flyers,
> > posting on the website, etc. What was never addressed was the
> > ownership of the original oil painting. It is not a work for hire
> > because there was no written agreement.
>
> No; it is not a "work for hire" because it is not a "work for hire"
> under the definition in s. 101 of the Copyright Act... you cannot
> affect whether something is a "work for hire" by written agreement.

You can't make a work not made for hire into a work made for hire by a written agreement. However, you can (1) transform a work made for hire into a work not made for hire by the absence of a written agreement (see second part of sec. 101 definition about commissioned works) and (2) you can transfer the copyright ownership of a work by written agreement.



Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/
Received on Sat Mar 11 2000 - 15:34:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT