Re: copyright and natural law?

Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]ieee.org> wrote:
>
> Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
> >
> > I did not say that it is a natural right. But please see my comments
> > of today on that subject (under a different subject - apologies for
> > confusing you with the change of subjects). As far as "works made for
> > hire" are concerned, can't you say - also according to US law - that
> > this is a so-called "legal license", i.e. copyright belongs in the
> > moment of creation to the author who is by law obliged to license it
> > to the employer etc.?
>
> Maybe you could look at it this way, but I think more accurately,
> the employer IS legally the author, and not the employee.

My understanding was that the provisions in UK copyright legislation (and others in that tradition including US) giving automatic ownership to employers of works created in the course of employment was simply a codification of the pre-existing position under English agency law i.e. employees are treated as the arm of their employer when they act in their capacity as employees (except the case law would probably have used servant-master language ;-).

This would accord with Bruce's position even if the wording of the legislation suggests some kind of transfer or assignment. Obviously the position under German law (and possibly other European copyright laws) differs.

-- 
| Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B., B.Sc. (Hons)
| Postal address:  Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT
|                  GPO Box 2476V
|                  Melbourne 3001
|                  AUSTRALIA
| Tel: 		+61 3 9925 4116
| Fax: 		+61 3 9925 4098
|	simul iustus et peccator
<tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au>