Re: Work for Hire and Copyright Assignment

On 1/23/99, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]attymail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe there's some confusion here that needs to be cleared up
> (unless I missed an intervening post). Schiller stands for the
> proposition that one cannot designate *retroactively* that a work
> is one made for hire.

But cf. Playboy vs. Dumas, 53 F.3rd 549 (2d. Cir. 1995) which says that the formal written agreement designating something a work made for hire *can* be executed after the work is done, in whole or in part, *provided* that the nature of that agreement i.e. that it was going to be a work made for hire done by the commissioning party, was in the contemplation of the parties, especially that of the creator, at the time the work was done.

The Court, distinguishing Schiller, stated:

      "We therefore find that the 1976 Act requires that the parties
      agree before the creation of the work that it will be a work 
      made for hire.  We are not convinced, however, that the actual 
      writing memorializing the agreement must be executed before 
      the creation of the work."

See the full article on my site. Click on "Helpful Articles for Writers and Publishers."

IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D.
Attorney At Law
Lawyering With Integrity (sm)
Writing and Publishing Law, Web Design Contracts and Law, Copyrights, Trademarks, Internet Law, Recording and Music Law. *A triple award-winning site.*
http://home.earthlink.net/~ivanlove/
<ivanlove[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Mon Jan 25 1999 - 15:25:37 GMT