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

> >The oddity to me, in determining whether a work is a WMFH
> *after* it's
> >been created is that it changes not merely ownership, but
> authorship, and
> >authorship strikes me as an immutable attribute.

That's what I'm saying ...

> My problem is with the notion of a WMFH created on commission by a
> non-employee, who doesn't get paid unless the work is
> "accepted" for
> inclusion in the collective work, etc. for which it was
> commissioned;
> and who can't shop it around, or even publish it himself,
> because it
> is a WMFH. A better definition of WMFH would provide for
> compensation
> that is as immutable as authorship.

Though it's not in copyright law, most states' labor laws would require that a WFH writer be paid for time worked. I don't know if that would hold for a royalties contract. In California, by the way, the employment tax agencies argue that a writer--or any creator--who give all copyright is a de facto employee. That would guarantee that the writer be paid no matter what the contract said.

• Mike Bradley www.techpubs.com