This would be a “work-for-hire,” thus not owned by the artist. As a matter of fact, the law does not even consider the artist to be the author of the work. So t

This would be a “work-for-hire,” thus not owned by the artist. As a matter of fact, the law does not even consider the artist to be the author of the work. So the point you thought you were making is actually quite backwards. > A copyrightable work is “made for hire” in two situations: > When it is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties > When a certain type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning it > When a work is a made for hire, the hiring or commissioning party is considered the author and the copyright owner. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf IANAL but I can imagine the courts bringing this aspect of the law coming into play if Congress continues to be cowardly and fails to pass clear legislation on this topic; courts often analogize to existing scenarios when existing law doesn’t cleanly cover a new one.