Hello,

My friend wrote this website: http://www.artskingston.com/ years ago
as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.

Within the last year, she became a contract "employee" of the Arts
Council as office manager. Her duties as such include answering the
phone, handling correspondence, etc.

The President of the Arts Council (I myself am a Board member)
recently asked my friend to put "Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage.

We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?

My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.

The Arts Council has never paid her to create the site, that is, to
design it. They have not purchased it from her, or offered to purchase
it from her.

*Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
the design, to the Arts Council?

The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council, as is
the hosting space.

If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?

Thanks in advance for any light that any of you may be able to shed on
this subject.

Mary

Mary Sunshine <fsrvival@gmail.com> wrote in message:
1188245224.908804.259020@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com,

> Hello,
>
> My friend wrote this website: http://www.artskingston.com/ years ago
> as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.
>
> Within the last year, she became a contract "employee" of the Arts
> Council as office manager. Her duties as such include answering the
> phone, handling correspondence, etc.
>
> The President of the Arts Council (I myself am a Board member)
> recently asked my friend to put "Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage.
>
> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?
>
> My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
> who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
> it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.
>
> The Arts Council has never paid her to create the site, that is, to
> design it. They have not purchased it from her, or offered to purchase
> it from her.
>
> *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
> the design, to the Arts Council?
>
> The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council, as is
> the hosting space.
>
> If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
> thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?
>
> Thanks in advance for any light that any of you may be able to shed on
> this subject.
>
> Mary

The Arts Council "owns" the site. The ownership of the copyright on the
content is a bit murkier because while it was not "work for hire" it
could be construed as a donation.

My advice to her would be not to upset her employer by asking to be paid
for something she did as a donation and to go ahead and put the
"Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage. However she could also add "Web site
designed by..." and a link.

--
Red

"Mary Sunshine" <fsrvival@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188245224.908804.259020@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
| Hello,
|
| My friend wrote this website: http://www.artskingston.com/ years ago
| as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.
|
| Within the last year, she became a contract "employee" of the Arts
| Council as office manager. Her duties as such include answering the
| phone, handling correspondence, etc.
|
| The President of the Arts Council (I myself am a Board member)
| recently asked my friend to put "Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage.
|
| We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?
|
| My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
| who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
| it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.
|
| The Arts Council has never paid her to create the site, that is, to
| design it. They have not purchased it from her, or offered to purchase
| it from her.
|
| *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
| the design, to the Arts Council?
|
| The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council, as is
| the hosting space.
|
| If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
| thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?
|
| Thanks in advance for any light that any of you may be able to shed on
| this subject.

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.

On Aug 27, 4:07 pm, Mary Sunshine <fsrvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My friend wrote this website:http://www.artskingston.com/years ago
> as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.

Since the council in question is "a registered non-profit
organization" (according to the site), the use of a .com address for
it is silly; it makes it look like it's trying to appear to be a
commercial entity. .org (or .ca for a Canadian organization) would
make more sense.

--
Dan

Mary Sunshine wrote:

> My friend wrote this website: http://www.artskingston.com/ years ago
> as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.
> ...
> The President of the Arts Council (I myself am a Board member)
> recently asked my friend to put "Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage.

It already says: © 2007 Island Arts
on each page.

Except for some pages, which say: © 2007 Kingston Arts Council

> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?

Looks as if "Island Arts" and "Kingston Arts Council" are going to have
to duke it out, eh?

You could ask Scarlett Johansson who is making the birch back canoe...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

> birch back canoe...

bark. Bark!

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:58:45 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

>It already says: © 2007 Island Arts
>on each page.
>
>Except for some pages, which say: © 2007 Kingston Arts Council
>
>> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?
>
>Looks as if "Island Arts" and "Kingston Arts Council" are going to have
>to duke it out, eh?
>

Good grief! I never noticed. :-P

She did the site in DreamWeaver ... maybe the IslandArts thing is her
own name?

I've never looked really closely at the site.

Thanks for that.

Mary

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:50:04 -0700, Dan <dan@tobias.name> wrote:

>Since the council in question is "a registered non-profit
>organization" (according to the site), the use of a .com address for
>it is silly; it makes it look like it's trying to appear to be a
>commercial entity. .org (or .ca for a Canadian organization) would
>make more sense.

I know. I've thought that myself. But, as usual, I wasn't around when
that decision was made.

Mary

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".

:-)

Thanks again,
Mary

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> bark. Bark!

Woof! Arf!


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> bark. Bark!
>
> Woof! Arf!

http://tinyurl.com/2pecvg

scuuza me

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> bark. Bark!
>
> Woof! Arf!

I knew you would be along... <har!>

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Mary Sunshine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My friend wrote this website: http://www.artskingston.com/ years ago
> as a volunteer, and continues to maintain it.
>
> Within the last year, she became a contract "employee" of the Arts
> Council as office manager. Her duties as such include answering the
> phone, handling correspondence, etc.
>
> The President of the Arts Council (I myself am a Board member)
> recently asked my friend to put "Copyright K.A.C." on the homepage.
>
> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?
>
> My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
> who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
> it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.
>
> The Arts Council has never paid her to create the site, that is, to
> design it. They have not purchased it from her, or offered to purchase
> it from her.
>
> *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
> the design, to the Arts Council?
>
> The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council, as is
> the hosting space.
>
> If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
> thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?
>
> Thanks in advance for any light that any of you may be able to shed on
> this subject.
>
> Mary
>

I don't know about Canadian law, but in the U.S. this could become very
murky.

As others have noticed, KAC owns the site. And, in the lack of any
agreement otherwise, the author, as a contractor, owns the copyright on
the pages. But she does not own the site.

However, as soon as she became an employee, things have changed. Any
modifications she made to any pages while an employee can now be
copyrighted by her employer. Work she did independently *may* still be
copyrighted by her - but she *may* have inadvertently transferred the
copyright to her employer.

Such is the think lawsuits are made of, and quite frankly, I don't know
how the courts would rule on this in the U.S., much less Canada.

I agree with other comments here. I would seek an accommodation here -
give KAC the copyright, if they will allow "designed by XXX" on the pages.

Otherwise she'll probably lose her job and a customer. And it's not
worth it. Better to keep on good terms with everyone.

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

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> bark. Bark!
>>
>> Woof! Arf!
>
> I knew you would be along... <har!>

I'm a sucker for concise instructions.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.

i

On 27 Aug, 21:07, Mary Sunshine <fsrvi...@gmail.com> wrote:


First of all, why are you asking this and what do you hope to achieve
by it?

It's a big mistake to go anywhere near the law without first
understanding what you're after. What are the possible outcomes?
What's likely? Which of these are you trying to achieve? Going to law
from some airy-fairy idea of "justice" or "fair play" is a recipe for
disaster!

AIUI, the author was not previously employed by the Arts Council, did
some work that benefitted them (either "for them" or that was later
"used by them"), they are now employed by them.

There are two things to be fought over here: "Credit" for having done
some work ("moral rights", a concept that's barely recognised in UK
law) and "copyright", the right to control the future use of this
content. The two are really separate - there's no reason why the site
can't say "All work was done by R.J. Author, all is now copyright of
the Arts Council" and R.J. Author may contine to cite the site as a
portfolio example of their work, perhaps to further their career as a
web designer.

Most copyright is commercially worthless. Most copyright is only of
interest to one possible user, and they often own it anyway. The site
(fine though it is) is of such specialised application that it has no
re-sale value to any other body. It's not the ownership of a Harry
Potter manuscript, it's not a licence to print money. Copyright is
most commonly like this, it's only of use to one body and such
copyright is only "valuable" if it's owned by someone else (such as a
bespoke web design house) looking to sell it to them.

Now in this case, either: the designer has already granted a licence
to the AC to use their work (but the designer retained copyright). Or,
the AC already had such control over the copyright because of how the
work was originally done for them. Possibly (and I think not in this
case) the designer may have owned the copyright at one point, then
transferred it.

So which one of these is it? And, given the new terms of employment,
and the fact they didn't raise this issue during recruitment, what do
they expect to gain by trying to change things now?

If they want credit (few would argue with that), then have them assign
the copyright, subject to an agreed wording that indicates the moral
rights and credits them appropriately.

If they want to either retain or sell the copyright, then I'd advise
caution. It's not worth much. Its worth nothing on the open market. It
was a worthwhile bargaining factor during recruitment (and should have
been sold then), but _now_ it's an embarassment. If they either won't
part with it or demand previously undiscussed payment for it, then any
sensible employer is going to see that as a major turn-around and act
of disloyalty by their new employee. It's just hard to see any way
that a negotiation starting on that basis can have any useful
outcome! They're likely to find themselves offered a derisory "Take
it or leave it" £5 for the content copyright and permanently blight
their ongoing employment prospects.


> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?

By "website" do you mean the location (i.e. domain name) or the
content ? Presumably the content, but rememebr that there is a
distinction to be made.

UK copyright law is fairly clear on this as regards content, but the
interpretation gets awkward. If it's a "work for hire", then copyright
was transferred immediately to the hirer by default. Whether it was
"work for hire" or not is the question here, not the copyright itself.
Volunteers certainly can be construed as such, it's a question of
their engagement and direction in producing the work. If they were an
"unpaid worker" then they certainly were. If they produced the work as
an independent agent and merely offered the results to the Arts
Council as a philanthropic gesture, then they weren't. Things like
provision of office space and the computers used to design it can also
come into play.

> My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
> who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
> it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.

"Who created it" is simply irrelevant for UK law, as is the question
of payment. Nor is "fair play" of any value in the UK legal system.

> *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
> the design, to the Arts Council?

Certainly. However the market for such targetted websites is usually
limited to one potential customer, who is well aware of this. If it's
a post facto negotiation, they're likely to make a trivially low offer
knowing that it's still the best you'll get.

> The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council,

Actually it isn't, as .com and UK domain names aren't sold, merely
licensed. They own a limited-time renewable licence to it, no more.
However they do have the (valuable) right to keep renewing it.


> If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
> thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?

Declarations mean nothing one way or the other, except in this case
where they would be seen as a strong admission that the author did not
have any claim to make over owning the copyright. Take specific legal
advice on this case before doing so.

Useful books here (UK standard undergrad texts, any library) are:
"Blackstone's Guide to the Trade Marks Act 1994"
Bainbridge's "Introduction to Computer Law"

On 27 Aug, 22:48, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> 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 her'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.

On 27 Aug, 23:59, Mary Sunshine <b...@blah.com> wrote:

> 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.

Ignoramus19946 <ignoramus19946@NOSPAM.19946.invalid> wrote in
news:roKdnddM8-y3407bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> If she wrote it "for" someone, it is that somone's property.
>

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. There are
well established guidelines used to determine a work-for-hire including
things like whether the person was paid and whether the "client" had
control over the "employee" in terms of where, when, and how the work was
created.

While good taste may seem to indicate otherwise, the site's creator owns
the site in this case because this does not sound like a work-for-hire
arrangement.




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

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.

Hello, Andy,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:32:49 -0700, Andy Dingley
>
>First of all, why are you asking this and what do you hope to achieve
>by it?
>

My friend is interested to clarify for herself her legal position in
the matter. I *told* her that all I could do was to ask the question
in this group, of experienced webmasters who may have been in or
encountered such situations, what their take on it is.

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

>It's a big mistake to go anywhere near the law without first
>understanding what you're after. What are the possible outcomes?
>What's likely? Which of these are you trying to achieve? Going to law
>from some airy-fairy idea of "justice" or "fair play" is a recipe for
>disaster!
>

Exactly. That's why she wanted to have a "good guess" before heading
into any potential conflict.

>AIUI, the author was not previously employed by the Arts Council, did
>some work that benefitted them (either "for them" or that was later
>"used by them"), they are now employed by them.
>

Well, actually she had worked for them before (under a previous
administration), left the position, and then returned *as a volunteer*
for several months last year, organizing the office and the membership
files which had been abandoned for a considerable period of time.
Then, when funds became available, she was hired as a part-time
contractor.

I'm not aware of the specific period of time in which she created /
designed the website as a volunteer.

>There are two things to be fought over here: "Credit" for having done
>some work ("moral rights", a concept that's barely recognised in UK
>law) and "copyright", the right to control the future use of this
>content.

Yes.

>The two are really separate - there's no reason why the site
>can't say "All work was done by R.J. Author, all is now copyright of
>the Arts Council" and R.J. Author may contine to cite the site as a
>portfolio example of their work, perhaps to further their career as a
>web designer.
>

Exactly. :-)

>Most copyright is commercially worthless. Most copyright is only of
>interest to one possible user, and they often own it anyway. The site
>(fine though it is) is of such specialised application that it has no
>re-sale value to any other body. It's not the ownership of a Harry
>Potter manuscript, it's not a licence to print money. Copyright is
>most commonly like this, it's only of use to one body and such
>copyright is only "valuable" if it's owned by someone else (such as a
>bespoke web design house) looking to sell it to them.
>

Thank you.

>Now in this case, either: the designer has already granted a licence
>to the AC to use their work (but the designer retained copyright). Or,
>the AC already had such control over the copyright because of how the
>work was originally done for them. Possibly (and I think not in this
>case) the designer may have owned the copyright at one point, then
>transferred it.
>

OK. Thanks for that.

>So which one of these is it? And, given the new terms of employment,
>and the fact they didn't raise this issue during recruitment, what do
>they expect to gain by trying to change things now?
>

Yes.

>If they want credit (few would argue with that), then have them assign
>the copyright, subject to an agreed wording that indicates the moral
>rights and credits them appropriately.
>

Aha! Thank you, again.

>If they want to either retain or sell the copyright, then I'd advise
>caution. It's not worth much. Its worth nothing on the open market. It
>was a worthwhile bargaining factor during recruitment (and should have
>been sold then), but _now_ it's an embarassment. If they either won't
>part with it or demand previously undiscussed payment for it, then any
>sensible employer is going to see that as a major turn-around and act
>of disloyalty by their new employee. It's just hard to see any way
>that a negotiation starting on that basis can have any useful
>outcome! They're likely to find themselves offered a derisory "Take
>it or leave it" £5 for the content copyright and permanently blight
>their ongoing employment prospects.
>

Yup, yup. :-|


>
>> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?
>
>By "website" do you mean the location (i.e. domain name) or the
>content ? Presumably the content, but rememebr that there is a
>distinction to be made.
>

Yes, I meant the design / content. The basic code, not the data
regarding current events and past projects.

>UK copyright law is fairly clear on this as regards content, but the
>interpretation gets awkward. If it's a "work for hire", then copyright
>was transferred immediately to the hirer by default. Whether it was
>"work for hire" or not is the question here, not the copyright itself.
>Volunteers certainly can be construed as such, it's a question of
>their engagement and direction in producing the work. If they were an
>"unpaid worker" then they certainly were. If they produced the work as
>an independent agent and merely offered the results to the Arts
>Council as a philanthropic gesture, then they weren't. Things like
>provision of office space and the computers used to design it can also
>come into play.
>

Yes! Thank you again for so carefully designating the specifics here.

>> *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
>> the design, to the Arts Council?
>
>Certainly. However the market for such targetted websites is usually
>limited to one potential customer, who is well aware of this. If it's
>a post facto negotiation, they're likely to make a trivially low offer
>knowing that it's still the best you'll get.
>

Yes.

>> If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
>> thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?
>
>Declarations mean nothing one way or the other, except in this case
>where they would be seen as a strong admission that the author did not
>have any claim to make over owning the copyright. Take specific legal
>advice on this case before doing so.
>
>Useful books here (UK standard undergrad texts, any library) are:
>"Blackstone's Guide to the Trade Marks Act 1994"
>Bainbridge's "Introduction to Computer Law"
>

Wow! Thank you so very much for all this. I will convey it to my
friend.

I hereby designate you as a "pro bono" consultant to the Kingston Arts
Council.

:-)

Cheers,
Mary

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.

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

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



--
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 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.copyrigh