cni-copyright@cni.org

> What you're missing is the work for hire doctrine that (1) specifies
> what can qualify as such and (2) provides that copyright in a work
> not for hire remains at some level with the author. E.g., there is an
> automatic reverter, no matter what the author tries to assign.

I guess my point is that with the NYT most of the material will not have any economic value by the time the copyright reverts and so the assignment is effectively 100% of the value. I am puzzled as to why the NYT would go the work for hire route since the assignment uses up the value for nearly all items the Times publishes. I understand the inclination to not want any messy problems later, but I remain puzzled as to why the NYT would think it necessary or valuable to take this somewhat problematic approach.

Cheers
Steve Jamar
<sjamar[_at_]aol.com> Received on Sat Sep 02 1995 - 00:48:48 GMT