...Where you had to pay a royalty fee to the person who designed your car every time you drove it or your house every time you went inside it or your toilet every time you took a sh*t. Entertainment has a unique business model in that the content creators make money pretty much forever after the content is actually created. I say "has" but that's quickly changing to "had" because more and more of our daily lives are filled with things that we don't actually own but rather rent and you have to pay rent on
Most products are "works for hire". The IP belongs to the entity that commissioned the design.
Not in the US, which is probably the main place you see the works made for hire doctrine. The Copyright Act is fairly clear. Typically a work made for hire is made by an employee in the course of their employment. Merely commissioning something doesn't count. Federal employment law is looked at if there's a question as to whether an employer/employee relationship existed. You'd think just hiring people and putting them on the payroll would be a common practice in the big copyright industries, especially since artists are usually cheap and avoiding termination may be worth it, but it is uncommon.
Aside from that, a commissioned work could be a work made for hire, but only under certain circumstances: the parties have to have a written, signed agreement that the work is a work made for hire and the work has to fall into one of several narrow categories, which are "a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas." A great many works don't qualify.
So merely commissioning someone to take some wedding photographs for you or paint you a painting isn't going to fly.
As a self employed engineer who produces works for hire, this is not true. Also, it is possible (and quite common) for someone to produce something and patent it. All on their own, with no contract. But then sell the rights to that invention on to another entity. The latter is pretty close to what many songwriters and composers do.
As a copyright lawyer, I beg to differ. Please take a look at the definition of Works Made for Hire in 17 USC 101 and maybe also take a quick read through Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) which discusses how to determine if someone is an employee and let me know precisely what you think is wrong.
Remember also, I am discussing copyrights, not patents, which don't have an invention-made-for-hire equivalent.
But this is entirely separate from an assignment or license of copyright
A crappy oral contract between the entity commissioning the project and an independent contractor. Studios don't work this way. They have attorneys on staff that craft very specific ownership terms for either commissioned works (albums to be produced) or writers/performers that walk in off the street with a finished work. Typically, the creator signs over all master and licensing rights in return for defined royalties. Authorship is only useful as far as the law defines the lifetime of a copyright (see the
A crappy oral contract between the entity commissioning the project and an independent contractor. Studios don't work this way.
Well, you can't have anything but a non-exclusive license if it's oral. But studios have been known to have crappy oral contracts and even implied contracts. Check out Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990).
Authorship is only useful as far as the law defines the lifetime of a copyright (see the Mickey Mouse Protection Act).
Also termination under 17 USC 203; we're seeing a number of termination cases and related things popping up these days. And there are a few other things that authorship is pertinent to. And foreign copyrights can also be an issue, but that's all handled under foreign law so we c
Not in the US, which is probably the main place you see the works made for hire doctrine. The Copyright Act is fairly clear. Typically a work made for hire is made by an employee in the course of their employment.
No. The studio system is dead for all intents and purposes. Production companies might have some studio musicians on staff to perform ad jingles. But the horrible abuses of performers, writers, directors, etc as employees of a studio died a well deserved death decades ago.
Sorry, I'm not talking about works where the point is to exploit the copyright, I'm talking about most works made for hire. An office memo sent by email is a work made for hire under our stupid copyright system that automatically grants copyrights upon creation. Things like that far outnumber movies and songs. Though as noted elsewhere, I'm surprised that no one has been trying to revive the studio system on a limited basis so as to avoid terminations.
"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative."
-- Peter da Silva
Imagine a world... (Score:2)
...Where you had to pay a royalty fee to the person who designed your car every time you drove it or your house every time you went inside it or your toilet every time you took a sh*t. Entertainment has a unique business model in that the content creators make money pretty much forever after the content is actually created. I say "has" but that's quickly changing to "had" because more and more of our daily lives are filled with things that we don't actually own but rather rent and you have to pay rent on
Re: Imagine a world... (Score:2)
Most products are "works for hire". The IP belongs to the entity that commissioned the design.
This is what record labels are doing: Buying songwriter's rights wholesale and then shopping around for performers.
Re: Imagine a world... (Score:2)
Most products are "works for hire". The IP belongs to the entity that commissioned the design.
Not in the US, which is probably the main place you see the works made for hire doctrine. The Copyright Act is fairly clear. Typically a work made for hire is made by an employee in the course of their employment. Merely commissioning something doesn't count. Federal employment law is looked at if there's a question as to whether an employer/employee relationship existed. You'd think just hiring people and putting them on the payroll would be a common practice in the big copyright industries, especially since artists are usually cheap and avoiding termination may be worth it, but it is uncommon.
Aside from that, a commissioned work could be a work made for hire, but only under certain circumstances: the parties have to have a written, signed agreement that the work is a work made for hire and the work has to fall into one of several narrow categories, which are "a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas." A great many works don't qualify.
So merely commissioning someone to take some wedding photographs for you or paint you a painting isn't going to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
As a self employed engineer who produces works for hire, this is not true. Also, it is possible (and quite common) for someone to produce something and patent it. All on their own, with no contract. But then sell the rights to that invention on to another entity. The latter is pretty close to what many songwriters and composers do.
Re: (Score:2)
As a copyright lawyer, I beg to differ. Please take a look at the definition of Works Made for Hire in 17 USC 101 and maybe also take a quick read through Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) which discusses how to determine if someone is an employee and let me know precisely what you think is wrong.
Remember also, I am discussing copyrights, not patents, which don't have an invention-made-for-hire equivalent.
But this is entirely separate from an assignment or license of copyright
Re: (Score:2)
let me know precisely what you think is wrong.
A crappy oral contract between the entity commissioning the project and an independent contractor. Studios don't work this way. They have attorneys on staff that craft very specific ownership terms for either commissioned works (albums to be produced) or writers/performers that walk in off the street with a finished work. Typically, the creator signs over all master and licensing rights in return for defined royalties. Authorship is only useful as far as the law defines the lifetime of a copyright (see the
Re: (Score:2)
A crappy oral contract between the entity commissioning the project and an independent contractor. Studios don't work this way.
Well, you can't have anything but a non-exclusive license if it's oral. But studios have been known to have crappy oral contracts and even implied contracts. Check out Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990).
Authorship is only useful as far as the law defines the lifetime of a copyright (see the Mickey Mouse Protection Act).
Also termination under 17 USC 203; we're seeing a number of termination cases and related things popping up these days. And there are a few other things that authorship is pertinent to. And foreign copyrights can also be an issue, but that's all handled under foreign law so we c
Re: (Score:0)
Not in the US, which is probably the main place you see the works made for hire doctrine. The Copyright Act is fairly clear. Typically a work made for hire is made by an employee in the course of their employment.
No. The studio system is dead for all intents and purposes. Production companies might have some studio musicians on staff to perform ad jingles. But the horrible abuses of performers, writers, directors, etc as employees of a studio died a well deserved death decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not talking about works where the point is to exploit the copyright, I'm talking about most works made for hire. An office memo sent by email is a work made for hire under our stupid copyright system that automatically grants copyrights upon creation. Things like that far outnumber movies and songs. Though as noted elsewhere, I'm surprised that no one has been trying to revive the studio system on a limited basis so as to avoid terminations.