"Andy Dingley"
|
| > The copyright belongs to the creator.
|
| On what basis are you rejecting the whole concept (strong in UK
| copyright law) of "work for hire"? There are a great many
| circumstances where this type of content production would be regarded
| as exactly that, even if it were produced by an unpaid volunteer.
|
| In particular, the content is specific to the Arts Council and of
| little use to others. That's an indication that it was indeed done as
| a work for hire. This isn't an insurmountable piece of evidence, but
| it's an indication as to the basis under which the work had been
| carried out.
|
| > Lacking a written hardcopy signed
| > agreement to transferring the copyrights the work product is her's and
heir's alone.
|
| This is simply wrong. If it's work for hire (according to the terms of
| engagement) then there's no need at all for any contract specific to
| the piece of work to transfer copyright.

You make a presumption that ultimate use/utility defines
work-product-for-hire as you make assumptions base on labor law as
automatically controlling copyright law. I have no doubt that the opposing
attorney will argue the points but I have doubts as to the impact of those
augment on the matter of the ownership of the copyright.

I know of no instance were a volunteer is automatically consider an
employee. In the USA most are NOT covered by workers comp. If there is a
professional liberty in their activates they are typically added to the
group's insurance coverage as additional insured or named insured.

I know, from personal experience, that as an employee of a non-profit
(Hospice in this case) if I drive my personal vehicle then any liability I
incur for that use on behalf of Hospice is covered by the hospice insurance
carrier. (Hull coverage is covered my personal insurance) If, OTOH, I am a
volunteer for Hospice my use of my personal car is NOT covered by the
insurance carrier for hospice. Again this is based on my experience in
several states. It may not be the case in all states.

With regard to international copyrights, the contacts we use are not
substantially different from those used locally. The only problems we have
experience is with China and those abuses were not from anyone we had
business dealings.

What should be evident is that good contracts make for good business just
like good fences make for good neighbors.

I, for one, work with contracts prepared before the fact even with (actually
especially so) friends and family.

Could be that my lack of problems is due to an adherence to a polity of
contracts, contracts, contracts to the point where no work starts on a
project unless and until the executed contacts are in hand.