On 10/26/99, 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.
Oh, pooh. I think it was fairly clear from the question that this was not in-house counsel. And there's nothing "dangerous" about it. If the client were the employer, then the attorney giving the advice would have given the correct advice.
And CNI-copyright is *not* a place to obtain "legal advice." It's a place to discuss legal and policy issues. Even if a poster uses it as a place to get "legal advice," he should always confirm it with a *paid* attorney, specifically engaged by the poster and who is familiar with "all" the facts.
BTW, I should note that in many law firms, the attorney drafting the contract would probably not be the owner of the copyright. The firm would. If the attorney were an employee of the firm, the contract would be a work made for hire. When I said "attorney," I was contrasting that person (or entity) with the client (who also may be an entity).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:37 GMT