"Karl Groves"

| >>> Andy Dingley wrote:
| >>>> On 28 Aug, 14:19, Karl Groves <k...@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:
| >>>>> Actual ownership of copyrights (including all source code) remains
| >>>>> in the hands of the creator of the work except in instances where
| >>>>> that material was created as part of an established
| >>>>> "work-for-hire" agreement.
| >>>> Or an "unestablished" work for hire agreement. UK law is quite
| >>>> broad in what it includes under those. Many volunteers will be
| >>>> treated as such.
| >>>>
| >>> That's a good point, Andy. I don't know how volunteers are treated
| >>> here in the U.S. under copyright law. I guess it would depend on
| >>> other things.
| >>>
| >>> For instance, I'm a volunteer for county Emergency Management.
| >>> Although I'm not paid, during the time I'm on "active duty", I'm
| >>> covered by the County's insurance policy. I would imagine if I were
| >>> working on a web site at that time, it could more easily be
| >>> construed as "work for hire", because even though I'm not being
| >>> "paid", I'm getting another benefit normally reserved for employees.
| >>>
| >>
| >>
| >> Supreme Court in CCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that
| >> characterize an "employer-employee" relationship as defined by agency
| >> law:
| >> 1 Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may
| >> determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's
| >> location, and provides equipment or
| >> other means to create work)
| >> 2 Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls
| >> the employee's schedule in creating work, has the right to have the
| >> employee perform other assignments,
| >> determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the
| >> employee's assistants)
| >> 3 Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in business
| >> to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or
| >> withholds tax from the employee's payment).
| >>
| >> Source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| > Yes, that's one case, Karl. But are there others?
|
| Naturally IANAL. Time used during work as a volunteer is not deductible
| under current tax laws, so I think a website (the product of the work)
| would constitute a donation, which would certainly constitute
| "ownership" of the final product.

I think you'll find that lacking a hard copy signed document transferring
the copyrights the author still owns the copyrights to the work product.

As example I can donate an oil painting to a charity auction. The ownership
of the physical painting is sold and is covered under the doctrin of first
use but lacking a hard copy signed document the copyrights are NOT
transferred.

An aside only the cost of materials used in the production of the work is
tax deductable to the artist/designer not the FMV of the work product.