3 ms·

Title 17 Circular 92 Chapter 2 § 204 . Execution of transfers of copyright ownership (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is

Title 17 Circular 92 Chapter 2 § 204 . Execution of transfers of copyright ownership (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. So it would seem that I didn't realise that there was a clause "other than by operation of law"; but you will also note that my last statement of my comment said that you should get a lawyer...

tptacek 12y ago
Your argument here being that 17 USC 101's plain and simple definition of "work for hire" is "invalid"? A “work made for hire” is— (1)a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (no further qualification is made regarding A.1)
- tankenmate 12y ago
  No that is not my argument; what I am saying is that we are both right. If there is a matter that is covered under the law, for example work for hire (which is covered under title 17), then there is no need for a written contract (or other written conveyance of transfer). If however the transfer happens under a matter not covered by law then a written contract is required; say for example a transfer as a part of the sale of a company. But my final point is still valid (as is supported by standard employment contracts covering IP rights even though it is covered under title 17) that if something is important to you get it written down in a contract and make sure it is checked by your own lawyer.
jdmichal 12y ago
"Work made to hire" means that the programmer never owned the copyright in the first place. The employer owned it from the moment it was created. There is no transfer of ownership taking place to document.

3 ms·

Title 17 Circular 92 Chapter 2 § 204 . Execution of transfers of copyright ownership (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is

by tankenmate 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago
Your argument here being that 17 USC 101's plain and simple definition of "work for hire" is "invalid"? A “work made for hire” is— (1)a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (no further qualification is made regarding A.1)
- tankenmate 12y ago
  No that is not my argument; what I am saying is that we are both right. If there is a matter that is covered under the law, for example work for hire (which is covered under title 17), then there is no need for a written contract (or other written conveyance of transfer). If however the transfer happens under a matter not covered by law then a written contract is required; say for example a transfer as a part of the sale of a company. But my final point is still valid (as is supported by standard employment contracts covering IP rights even though it is covered under title 17) that if something is important to you get it written down in a contract and make sure it is checked by your own lawyer.
jdmichal 12y ago
"Work made to hire" means that the programmer never owned the copyright in the first place. The employer owned it from the moment it was created. There is no transfer of ownership taking place to document.