Re: copyright and natural law?

On 9/15/98, Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moritz Roettinger <moritz.roettinger[_at_]dg23.cec.be> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.?
> >
> > Many works today are the product of teams -- movies, for instance
> > -- where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The
> > author is the filmmaker that organized, financed, etc. Employees
> > are not free to create whatever they choose.
>
> I agree. But in most copyright laws there are specific provisions for
> movies.

In film, the writer loses most power unless he/she is also the director, producer and financier. I think that, ultimately, the production company holds copyright --hence the power and prestige of Hollywood studio houses and todays media conglomerates.

--Madeleine Fix
<fix.3[_at_]osu.edu> Received on Wed Sep 16 1998 - 16:57:38 GMT