Slashdot Mirror

That only applies to copyrighted work. For non-copyrighted work, it just has to be a bit different. For instance, I am free to take a PD version of Hamlet, "just copy and paste" the entire thing, add a few liner notes I wrote myself, or perhaps a picture or two, and copyright the result.

The article isn't clear on the specifics, but this write-up explains it well.

How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?

For educational purposes, I found two apparently conflicting short sentences, a very tiny part of a very long public web page written by an attorney on this topic, and my criticism is I do not see how it explained this conflict. My guess, is this is one of those situations where it appears pretty vague in American English, but using precise legal definitions its crystal clear?

"Despite termination, the right to continue to exploit previously-prepared derivative works (e.g., a motion picture based on a book) may be immune, or safe from termination."

"That is, after transfer of rights in the underlying work is terminated, the owner of the derivative work (e.g., motion picture version of a novel) has no right to continue exploiting the work in any manner."

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copyterm.html

It's not a contract, it's a transfer of copyright, which is a VERY different thing (as SCO learned to their ruin). The transfer would be valid if it were written on the back of an envelope. There is no requirement for consideration... a copyright can be transferred as a gift, or bequeathed in a will for that matter.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204

But if it makes you feel better to treat it as a contract, you can use this form:
http://www.copylaw.com/forms/copyassn.html

Not sure this is a distinction with a difference.

BTW, according to the US Supreme Court,

"[T]rademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, 'reduce[s] the customer's cost's of shopping and making purchasing decisions,' for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that the this item -- the item with this mark -- is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product." Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co, U.S. Supreme Court (1995).

Reference is from http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/trademrk.html.

I'm no law student, but according to a lawstudent friend of mine there's actually a huge difference(we've debated the fair use subject again and again).

check item 16. @ http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html

Actually, "work for hire" status is not simply a matter of agreement between an independent contractor and their client. There are some very limited circumstances where an independent contractor's work can be considered a "work for hire". Within these circumstances, an explicit agreement to "work for hire" status is always necessary, but it is nowhere close to sufficient. See this article. In fact, for a software contractor, it can almost never be acheived.

What the parties can do is agree to "assign" copyright ownership for the material in question to the client. This is different in that it does not absolve the contractor of certain kinds of liability the same way "work for hire" does.

You said it correctly: "work for hire" applies to material created by an employee during his or her term of employment. An independent contractor is NOT an "employee". There are a few very narrow cases where an independent contractor's work may be a "work for hire". All involve an explicit agreement to this effect, but even this is not sufficient to guarantee it legally. See this article for more info.

Normally, stuff you creates when not on the job is yours even if you are an "employee". The only time this isn't the case is if your employment contract specifically contains terms stating otherwise. It's never the case that you lose rights to work you create "off the clock" involunatarily. You must agree explicitly. Courts almost always resolve contract ambiguity in favor of the author.

For those that care, the case to read is CCNV v Reid, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a sculptor who created a statue for a non-profit organization when determining who owned the copyright. This opinion spells out everything and is the definitive precedent for all of this.

If the photographer worked for a studio, the studio owner would actually own the images,
followed your advice(google), to find who owns the copyright, all the first 5 links I clicked on say the opposite of what you claim.

http://copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html
the fact that under copyright law, authors are presumed to own the copyright in the works they create. The best way to avoid these problems is by having a written agreement in place before any work begins.

What the federal trademark dilution statute does (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)) is make parody and satire, especially in advertisements and commercials, a high risk endeavor. For example, where there's a negative or unwholesome connotation about a "famous" mark, courts are likely to enjoin use.

Now if we're going to argue that the Supreme Court will apply trademark rules to a non-trademarked item, then we need to take this caselaw all the way. For example, from L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc.:

The court also held that enjoining the publication of a parody to prevent trademark dilution did not offend the first amendment.

I would al

If you are a contractor hired to do work, it is work done for hire and all belongs to the client.

Link

Notice that the first guideline references "nonprofit educational purposes." -- to wit,
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

9. Since I'm planning to use my work for nonprofit educational purposes, I don't need permission.

Not necessarily. The key factor is not the user, but the nature of the material, how it is being used, and whether the new use adversely affects the value of the original work. Since even a nonprofit educational use can undermine the value of a copyrighted work, such organizations are not immune from copyright infringement suits.