On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Ari Kahan <akahan[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Without meaning to minimize Robert's response, which cogently explains
> the standard work-for-hire analysis, I had kind of thought that that
> was the easy part, and it was assumed in the question; the harder part,
> and what I had thought made the problem interesting, and what I still
> haven't gotten any feedback on, or seen any caselaw on, is the wrinkle
> in which the temporary employee is not an employee of the company for
> whom the work is performed, but is an employee of the temp agency that
> sent her. Even if it is assumed that the work is a work for hire
> (worker is clearly an employee of SOMEONE, and the work is done within
> the scope of the contemplated work assignment), it's not clear to me
> whether the copyright in the work belongs to the temp agency or the
> client of the temp agency for whom the work was ultimately performed,
> in the absence of any agreement regarding such things between the temp
> agency and the client.
Assuming the worker is an employee of the temp agency and the work was done within the scope of employment, the copyright in the work product belongs to the temp agency unless the temp agency's contract with the company transfers copyright ownership to the company. I suspect most such contracts do this.
Stephen Fishman
<sfish55[_at_]yahoo.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:36 GMT