Re: Re: derivative work - rights to publisher and rights reserved

At 4:55 PM -0400 4/29/05, Mike Bradley wrote:
> > 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,"
>
>Granted, it's not specifically in the language, but it's simple logic,
>isn't it? I know, this is the law we're talking about, not logic, but
>still.
>
>One can't commission a work after it has already been created, one can
>only buy it or, at least, buy the rights.

No, but one can commission a work before it is created, and then decide whether or not it "shall be considered" a work for hire.

>If WFH contracts can be
>signed after the fact, what is the point? After the fact, all the
>benefits of WFH can be obtained by other means, and it would be
>contrary to the purpose of the WFH clause, which is to provide a
>convenient, reasonable means for employer/producers of heterogeneous
>works to control the rights of all the contributions.

The employee/creator of a WFH is generally paid for his work, while he works, whether or not the work turns out to be any good, whether or not it is ever published. The freelance/creator of a commissioned work, as well as the commissioner, may want to retain the flexibility to decide later whether or not the commissioner wants to pay for or publish what the freelancer creates, in which case the freelancer should also keep the right to look for another publisher, which he can't do if it's a WFH

>I also think that retroactive WFH is illogical because it hinges on
>authorship. The employer/producer obtains the copyright because he is
>the *legal author,* not because he is the employer or producer. But if
>a work is created by a non-WFH procedure, the legal authors are the
>actual creators, and there is no way that a work can have two sets of
>authors in this manner. There can only one set of authors.
>
>= 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/>.
Received on Sat Apr 30 2005 - 02:25:30 GMT