Re: copyright in legal documents

On 10-27-1999, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/25/99, Mike Phillips <radiolawyer[_at_]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A new client asked me a question this morning that has been asked
> > > many times, but I've never had to answer it before. (It's an academic
> > > question.)
> > >
> > > When a client pays an attorney to draft a contract, who owns the
> > > copyright to the contract?
> >
> > Did the client draft the contract? I don't think so. So, the
> > attorney is the author, and copyright vests initially in the
> > author. See 17 U.S.C. sec. 201(a). (I don't think anyone would
> > seriously contend that the contract is a work made for hire.)
>
> I will. A corporate lawyer, working for his or her firm, is an
> EMPLOYEE, and the work for hire doctrine vests any copyright in the
> EMPLOYER. Client and employer are not mutually exclusive.
>
> The sort of absolutes that have been discussed are dangerous. 99%
> of the time the attorney is a contractor, but not always. Legal
> questions must be posed to an attorney, so that if you are in that
> 1% exception, you get valid legal advice for your specific situation.
> It is not acceptable to console the client with the words "well, my
> advice would have worked for 99% of the clients I work with".
>
> Whether or not the contract could be registered is another matter,
> and whether one could enforce the copyright still another. On the
> issue of who the author is, a corporate attorney is an employee, if
> he or she draws a paycheck and passes the IRS tests for an employee.

Sigh. I guess this confirms my good sense in drafting contracts myself, and just asking a lawyer to check them over. But I guess unless I get a release, the attorney would retain proprietary rights in any modifications or corrections he suggested. Right? O my.

pat

Pat Sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Wed Oct 27 1999 - 10:05:22 GMT