3 ms·
His acceptance of payment / verbal contract amounts to him granting license, not transfer of copyright. You don't have to take anybody's word for it. Most of
by brlewis 19y ago
His acceptance of payment / verbal contract amounts to him granting license, not transfer of copyright.
You don't have to take anybody's word for it. Most of title 17 is reasonably accessible:
Ownership:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201----...
See especially the definition of "work made for hire" here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----...
- cstejerean 19y agoI'm a little confused A “work made for hire” is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or I read that as: if someone hired you to write some code for them, then the code you write seems to be work made for hire, in which case they own the copyright.
- p_alexander 19y agoI think this is not a work made for hire because it was done on contract rather than as an employee. From PubLaw (http://www.publaw.com/work2.html http://www.publaw.com/work2.html) "But if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."