4 ms·

My understanding is a work for hire contract entitles the writer to royalties if the contract says it does. Unless you can show a court case where the contract

My understanding is a work for hire contract entitles the writer to royalties if the contract says it does. Unless you can show a court case where the contract said a work-for-hire author is entitled to royalties and the court threw out that contract provision as "illegal" or "not royalties" then I'm skeptical what you wrote here is correct.

gamblor956 6y ago
My understanding is a work for hire contract entitles the writer to royalties if the contract says it does. Yes, we agree on that point. However my point is that a WFH contract that entitles the author to royalties is extremely rare. ADF apparently has copies of these contracts (per the SFWA president) and they haven't yet shown any portion of the contract actually provides for royalties, which would be extremely rare for a WFH contract. Unless you can show a court case where the contract said a work-for-hire author is entitled to royalties and the court threw out that contract provision as "illegal" or "not royalties" then I'm skeptical what you wrote here is correct. There are plenty of court cases analyzing what a "royalty" is for both copyright and tax purposes, but the remedy isn't to throw out the contract provision if something isn't a "royalty." It simply informs how the contract between the two parties is enforced or the non-contract effects of the transaction. (For example, on the tax side, a royalty is generally subject to different tax rules.) In the IP realm, if a payment isn't a royalty, than that would simply mean that it's not paid for the right to use IP (but was paid for some other reason). I'm not saying that ADF isn't entitled to get paid something by someone. I'm simply saying that the facts as provided, given the nature of WFH agreements in Hollywood, suggests very strongly that he isn't entitled to royalties.

gamblor956 6y ago

My understanding is a work for hire contract entitles the writer to royalties if the contract says it does. Yes, we agree on that point. However my point is that a WFH contract that entitles the author to royalties is extremely rare. ADF apparently has copies of these contracts (per the SFWA president) and they haven't yet shown any portion of the contract actually provides for royalties, which would be extremely rare for a WFH contract. Unless you can show a court case where the contract said a work-for-hire author is entitled to royalties and the court threw out that contract provision as "illegal" or "not royalties" then I'm skeptical what you wrote here is correct. There are plenty of court cases analyzing what a "royalty" is for both copyright and tax purposes, but the remedy isn't to throw out the contract provision if something isn't a "royalty." It simply informs how the contract between the two parties is enforced or the non-contract effects of the transaction. (For example, on the tax side, a royalty is generally subject to different tax rules.) In the IP realm, if a payment isn't a royalty, than that would simply mean that it's not paid for the right to use IP (but was paid for some other reason). I'm not saying that ADF isn't entitled to get paid something by someone. I'm simply saying that the facts as provided, given the nature of WFH agreements in Hollywood, suggests very strongly that he isn't entitled to royalties.