Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in
news:OP-dnckjMu7jpknbnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Karl Groves wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:ZLGdnRXgX5W4q0nbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> 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.

If anyone can find a relevant third party source of information on this,
it would be great. I'm coming up blank.



--
Karl Groves
http://www.8pistons.com
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
http://www.grayscalecms.com
http://www.karlcore.com

On 28 Aug, 15:48, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> That's a good point, Andy.

Actually it's an irrelevance and I should just shut up. This isn't the
UK Arts Council (as I'd misread it initially), it's a Canadian body.
Obviously local laws apply.

I've just been reading far too much UK Arts Council and Crafts Council
stuff in the last few weeks, I've gone snow-blond.

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in
news:AJadnUfHTpVboUnbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@comcast.com:

>
> You aren't going to get a "good guess" in this group. None of us are
> attorneys, and are not qualified to give legal advice.
>
> If she really wants to know, she needs to contact someone versed in
> copyright - not internet - law.

And it sounds like she's really going to need someone versed not only in
intellectual property law but nonprofit law as well. As Jerry has
highlighted, there appears to be a weird grey area with respect to work
performed as a volunteer.

My instinct is that it doesn't matter - she produced the site, she owns
it, but IANAL and I won't pretend to be one

> But what does she want out of this? Does she now want to go back and
> get paid for her work? I doubt it's going to happen - if she wins,
> they're more likely to fire her and find another volunteer to put up
> another web site.
>
> If she just wants to add it to her portfolio, she can do that since she
> designed the site, even if they do own the copyright. And as others
> have said, if she wants the advertising, work with them on a "Designed
> by xxx" tag on the site.

I haven't seen much of the OP's messages because I have Google Groups
blocked. All I've seen is whats been quoted during replies.

I have to say that the OP's friend is likely to end up on the losing end
of things, overall. She should just ask for a backlink and be happy with
it, lest she find herself losing her job and her backlink. The truth is,
in order to pursue anything legally she's going to have to pony up some
retainer money. I know what my lawyer would say: "STFU and take the back
link".




--
Karl Groves
http://www.8pistons.com
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
http://www.grayscalecms.com
http://www.karlcore.com

Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in
news:Xns999A738694A37karlkarlcorecom@130.81.64.196 :

> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in
> news:OP-dnckjMu7jpknbnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Karl Groves wrote:

>>> 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)

Sorry. Should be "...so I *don't* know whether..."


> would constitute a donation, which would certainly constitute
> "ownership" of the final product.




--
Karl Groves
http://www.karlcore.com/cms/id/domains-for-sale/
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
http://www.grayscalecms.com
http://www.karlcore.com

Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message:
Xns999A763E512D3karlkarlcorecom@130.81.64.196,
> I have to say that the OP's friend is likely to end up on the losing
> end of things, overall. She should just ask for a backlink and be
> happy with it, lest she find herself losing her job and her backlink.
> The truth is, in order to pursue anything legally she's going to have
> to pony up some retainer money. I know what my lawyer would say:
> "STFU and take the back link".

After all is said and done, this is by far the best answer.

--
Red

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:1188315455.284930.314840@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...

> I've just been reading far too much UK Arts Council and Crafts Council
> stuff in the last few weeks, I've gone snow-blond.

The snow bleaches your hair? Crikey, I'd better stay away from it for a
while :-)

--
Richard.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 15:48, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> That's a good point, Andy.
>
> Actually it's an irrelevance and I should just shut up. This isn't the
> UK Arts Council (as I'd misread it initially), it's a Canadian body.
> Obviously local laws apply.
>
> I've just been reading far too much UK Arts Council and Crafts Council
> stuff in the last few weeks, I've gone snow-blond.
>

Not necessarily, Andy. A lot of laws are similar - although you need an
attorney to tell you what applies in a specific instance, of course.

And I found your post to be highly educational. It sounds like UK law
is much broader than US law, for instance.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Aug 27, 9:45 pm, Ignoramus19946 <ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19946.invalid> wrote:
> If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.
>
> i

I agree with 19946. It was written "for the council" The fact she
didn't get paid for it means nothing. I do a lot of work on Rent A
Coder in my spare time. The buyer always gets the code. I might
charge $4.00 for a $1,000 worth a work. I get my $4 sure enough, but
they get everything.

Dean wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:45 pm, Ignoramus19946 <ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
> 19946.invalid> wrote:
>> If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.
>>
>> i
>
> I agree with 19946. It was written "for the council" The fact she
> didn't get paid for it means nothing. I do a lot of work on Rent A
> Coder in my spare time. The buyer always gets the code. I might
> charge $4.00 for a $1,000 worth a work. I get my $4 sure enough, but
> they get everything.
>

Doesn't a difference if they get the code or not. Copyright has a legal
definition, and U.S. law states that if you do creative work for someone
and are not an employee, you own the copyright (unless you have assigned
the copyright to them in the contract or other legal document).

The fact it was "written for the council" is immaterial. Check with a
copyright attorney.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:P9IAi.56911$ax1.41658@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
|
| > birch back canoe...
|
| bark. Bark!


OK so you can speak now roll over.

"Mary Sunshine" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message
newsil6d3tli9g31g2u56n5k03klh5htivs16@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:48:36 -0400, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
|
| >
| >The copyright belongs to the creator. Lacking a written hardcopy signed
| >agreement to transferring the copyrights the work product is her's and
her's
| >alone. (any claim by the Arts Council to the contrary has not validity
| >neither does the AC putting the notice Copyright, Arts Council. (BTDT
the
| >work product was still mine)
| >
| >Lacking a written and signed agreement to the contrary subsequent
employment
| >does not change the ownership nor does the subsequent employment convert
the
| >work product to work product for hire.
| >
| >It does not matter if the work was paid or volunteer.
| >
| >The real question is this something she wants to fight over.
| >
| >The other side is this something the AC wants to proceed with given the
| >nature of the organization.
| >
| >That said, this is not legal advice I'm not a lawer and don't play one on
| >the internet.
| >
|
| Aha!! Thanks for that.
|
| That makes perfect sense to me, in terms of English Common Law and
| basic contract law.
|
| I'll tell her that a webmaster who has BTDT has discovered that to be
| the case.
|
| Then, if she feels that at any point she needs to pursue the matter,
| she'll have "a sense of her surroundings".
|

A babe in the woods when it come to web work. We run several graphic arts
studios and have made our living from IPR (intellectual property rights) for
over 40 years.

"Andy Dingley"

| > I'll tell her that a webmaster who has BTDT has discovered that to be
| > the case.
|
| An anonymous webmaster with no discernible output, who regularly posts
| legal opinions that contradict the basics of UK copyright law.
|
| "NotMe" has apparently won numerous legal victories in such cases, yet
| hhe/she/it still refuses to cite them so that they're checkable.
|
| Make of that what you will.

The very few issues that have made it to court have been won. The key is to
avoid losing (I think the lawyers refer to this as 'prevailing') by using
enforceable contracts.

For the record I'm not a web master (as stated previously I have limited
experiance in coding for the web) but an artist and an engineer who has made
my bread from IPR (intelectual property rights) for over 40 years. Since I
got my start, professionally, in the late 50's my efforts in the regard
predate the web.

BTW I have likewise stated I am based in the USA and am not a lawyer.

"Dean" <noreply@coveyaccounting.com> wrote in message
news:1188353812.495155.19890@g4g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com...
| On Aug 27, 9:45 pm, Ignoramus19946 <ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
| 19946.invalid> wrote:
| > If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.
| >
| > i
|
| I agree with 19946. It was written "for the council" The fact she
| didn't get paid for it means nothing. I do a lot of work on Rent A
| Coder in my spare time. The buyer always gets the code. I might
| charge $4.00 for a $1,000 worth a work. I get my $4 sure enough, but
| they get everything.

Anyone purchasing MS Vista gets to USE the application and by extension the
code therein but clearly MS still holds the copyrights to the code.

MS is a bit more proactive in stating the obvious but lacking a written
agreement to grant the client exclusive rights to the code you can use the
same code in another project and charge that client an additional fee for
the use of the code.

"Mary Sunshine"

| She knows that she must confirm anything with her own legal counsel.
| Such legal counsel, of course, may not be experienced in internet
| matters.

*If* this is something she really wants to fight with, I would recommend she
talk to someone that specializes in copyright law.

BTW lawyers with this experience are NOT cheap.

"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.

"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.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote
>> On Aug 27, 9:45 pm, Ignoramus19946 wrote:
>>> If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.
>>
>> I agree with 19946. It was written "for the council" The fact she
>> didn't get paid for it means nothing. I do a lot of work on Rent A
>> Coder in my spare time. The buyer always gets the code. I might
>> charge $4.00 for a $1,000 worth a work. I get my $4 sure enough, but
>> they get everything.
>
> Doesn't a difference if they get the code or not. Copyright has a legal
> definition, and U.S. law states that if you do creative work for someone
> and are not an employee, you own the copyright (unless you have assigned
> the copyright to them in the contract or other legal document).
>
> The fact it was "written for the council" is immaterial. Check with a
> copyright attorney.
>
Even if she were an employee (paid or volunteer), I believe copyright would
not automatically pass to the employer, at least under U.S. law. See
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html.
The employer would own the copyright only if the creative work was performed
in the course of her normal employment -- that is, if she was hired
specifically for that task, as a journalist is hired by a newspaper or an
illustrator by a magazine -- or if there is a written agreement specifying
the transfer of copyright to the employer.
The fact that she originally created the site as a non-paid volunteer would
support the notion that she retains ownership of the design. Her later
employment to maintain the site should not affect that.
Of course, unless she created the organization's logo or some other portion
that would be difficult to replace, I am not sure what leverage she has. For
far less than the cost of litigating the issue, the organization could dump
her design and "plug in" an off-the-shelf template, and then engage another
designer to come up with a fresh look under a work-for-hire agreement.
In the USA, a good copyright attorney will cost $300 to $500 per hour.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:03:41 -0400, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>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.

No, you can transfer copyright by a pre-existing pro forma that doesn't
need to specify the exact work concerned, under either UK or US
copyright law.

However you can't do this for the moral rights under US law. _That_
needs to be a post facto signature (although not a hard copy, under
recent standards for "signature").