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

> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Mike Bradley wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Is this correct? I know there are statutes that require
> that a WMFH
> creator is deemed to be an employee for purposes of
> worker's comp and
> unemployment; but I'm unaware of any similar provision for taxation
> purposes (not that that would necessarily stop a tax agency
> from making
> the claim), or other employment provisions.
>
> I'm assuming your comment is limited to the present context
> of works made
> for hire, as opposed to an assignment of copyright; I
> concede that my
> quote above doesn't reflect that context.
>
> Terry Carroll

I'll send the long story privately to Terry, since it's not really a copyright issue. If anyone else wants the long story, let me know privately (mbradley[_at_]techpubs.com).

Terry knows that Calif has a peculiar law regarding independent contractor (IC) creative workers who do WFH, in that their clients must enroll the creators in the state's basic employee insurance programs (unemployment, disability, workers comp) and pay the taxes as a sort of compensation for the loss of copyright.

The agency that collects the taxes argues that, since the programs are intended for employees, anyone enrolled in them must be an employee. Therefore, when they find that an IC creator has been enrolled, they reclassify him as a de facto employee.

Further, they extend this argument by asserting that the creators' loss of copyright is what landed them in the insurance programs and made them employees. Therefore, loss of (all) copyright means a creator is an employee.

• Mike Bradley www.techpubs.com