Thanks for the thoughts on WmFH John and Mike, but I'm more concerned
with how to structure an agreement that will: 1) acknowledge the
pre-existing original work - and the author's sole copyright in it, and
that the new work is a derivative of the the pre-existing work (this is
not a drafting problem, just a necessary part of the agreement, that may
constrain the structure of the rest of the agreement(?)),
2) allow the publisher to fully market and distribute and license the
new product, while also maintaining the author's abilities to do live
trainings and presentations using both the pre-existing work and the new
product. My main concern here is whether to characterize the publishers
rights as "exclusive" or not. The authors do not need the ability to
license the new work to others (3rd parties). They just want to be able
to continue to do trainings and presentations themselves. Will
reserving this right make the grant to the publisher non-exclusive? If
so, can the publisher merely license that right back to the authors for
the term of the agreement?
An agreement most papable to both parties would also:
3) have the authors retain copyright (and credit) for the content they
provided - which is all of the text in the new product (in the printed
material, on the web site, and on the DVD),
4) have the production company receive copyright (and credit) for the
original content they provided, which includes the artistic design and
layout of all the materials, including the computer code for the web
site and DVD, and the creation of cartoon characters in the DVD.
Is it possible to manage the division of copyright in a single work this way? When registering a work I believe that it must be registered as a complete work, with joint authors in the whole work, not certain aurthors for certain portions of the work - correct? If the new work is registered like this (and/or otherwise agreed to as such in writing), as having joint ownership (authorship) of the copyright, then the parties could have an agreement dividing their rights in the copyright however they want - correct?
Thanks again for any input.
-Andy
John wrote:
> As defined by the Act, a "work made for hire" is-
>
> (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
> employment; or
>
> (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution
> to a ... supplementary work... if the parties expressly agree in a
> written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a
> work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a
> "supplementary work" is a work prepared for publication as a secondary
> adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing,
> concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or
> assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords,
> pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes,
> musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies,
> appendixes, and indexes....
>
> According to the original post:
>
>> They have recently developed an interactive DVD and website with a
>> publisher/software developer, which is based on the material they have
>> authored over the years.
>
>
> Since C-Corp, which apparently owns the copyright on the original, and
> the three officers who created the original work, are plainly not
> employees of the publisher, the proposed agreement must be rooted in
> the second definition. It sounds like the publisher may have
> "specially ordered or commissioned" the creation of a new derivative
> work "based on the material they have authored over the years" which
> is intended "for use as a contribution to a ... supplementary work" --
> the DVD and website.
>
> The plain language of the Act -- "expressly agree in a written
> instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work
> made for hire" -- doesn't seem to require either an oral agreement or
> signed written agreement that it's a work-made-for-hire before the
> work is created. It only requires a written agreement (whenever) that
> the work "shall be considered a work made for hire." The Second
> Circuit is closer to the mark because the work for hire (in this case
> a derivative) has to be "specially ordered or commissioned," but I
> think the Act leaves room for a work that is "specially ordered or
> commissioned," that the parties might later agree "shall be considered
> a work made for hire."
>
> In other words, I don't see anything in the language of the Act that
> says I can't revise a law review article I wrote about P2P
> file-sharing if it is "specially ordered" by you for possible
> inclusion in a multi-media presentation targeted to high school
> students instead of lawyers; and decide later whether it "shall [or
> not] be considered a work made for hire," based on a) whether or not
> you want to publish it when you see it; b)whether or not I think I can
> get more for it by licensing it to someone else when I'm done with it;
> c) whether I want the money as I work (typical but not necessary for a
> work-made-for-hire), when I deliver the work (typical for a transfer
> or assignment), or in royalties (typical for a license); and d) how
> much I want for my termination rights (which is all the author
> necessarily gives up with a work made for hire, and which is typically
> worthless unless you wrote Gone With the Wind).
>
> John Noble
>
> At 4:00 PM -0400 4/27/05, Mike Bradley wrote:
>
>> The work cannot be work for hire because it has already been created,
>> and WFH cannot apply retroactively. Playboy v. Dumas, 53 F.3rd 549
>> (2d. Cir. 1995), held that both parties must agree beforehand that a
>> work will be WFH, but it allowed the agreement to be signed
>> afterwards. However, Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp., 969
>> F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992), had already held that not only must the
>> parties agree beforehand; they must execute the signed agreement
>> beforehand, as well.
>>
>> In addition, it's simple common sense that WFH can't be retroactive.
>> If a work is created originally as a non-WFH piece, the copyright
>> comes into existence belonging to the actual author. Since the
>> copyright exists, it can't come into existence again with the employer
>> as the putative author. Instead, the rights must be transferred to the
>> employer.
>>
>> = Mike Bradley
>> www.techpubs.com
>>
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>>
>> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
>> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 30 2005 - 00:55:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT