Re: L.Rev (C) Release

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Harold Federow <HaroldF[_at_]bsquare.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 08, 1999, Bruce E. Hayden <bhayden[_at_]ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Harold Federow <haroldf[_at_]bsquare.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 04, 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but unfortunately we are pretty clearly employees acting
> > > > in the scope of our employment. That is enough to trigger
> > > > work-for-hire status under the 1976 Act, unless the non-statutory
> > > > "teacher exception" is thought to apply.
> > >
> > > Or something else might also apply: At the University of Washington
> > > here in Seattle, the code governing faculty and professional staff
> > > explicitly exempts these kinds of things from University ownerships
> > > (but does not do the same for inventions!). So, you also have to
> > > check the governing "employment" documents.
> >
> > But is this really sufficient to take things out of work for hire
> > situation? Possibly if you view these rules as defining what is
> > within the scope of employment for faculty, but then again, there
> > is always the argument that you make below - that they are hired
> > to teach, research, and write. If that is the case, then at best
> > I would think that the school policies would work to create a
> > limited license to the faculty to license their works.
>
> I think of it more as the University waiving its rights as an employer.

Why not think of it as an oversight in the 1976 law, one that is commonly disposed of in employment documents? I suspect ineffective lobbying is to blame. The relationship did not change with the law, the documents did.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Wed Nov 10 1999 - 22:05:31 GMT