HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:50:21 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <ld4ijuINNqi5@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian 
Keith Michalk) writes:
> This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not 
sign
> a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.
> 
> At the time practically all of the work was done in their office on their 
> equipment to speed up the development.  Lateley though I have been doing
> all the programming here at home on my own equipment.
> 
> Now the company wants to expand the program to use in their other various
> offices.
> 
> So the question is, who owns the copyright?  Do I have a right to ask for
> compensation from each of the offices that wants to use it?  And if so,
> how would be the best way to go about charging all the various offices?

This is not a legal opinion or legal advice.

Copyright vests initially in the author of the work.  17 USC 201 (a).  In the 
case of a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author for 
purposes of copyright, and in the absence of a written signed instrument, 
owns the copyright.  17 USC 201 (b).

You've stated that you were not an employee.  While you might be correct in 
an everyday sense of the word, that is a matter of law, not of fact, so 
applying the legal definition of employer and employee may classify you as an 
employee as a matter of law and vest copyright in the company.  The precise 
answer to this query will depend on the specific facts of the situation, and 
I'm not competent or licensed to address that.

As an additional wrinkle, even if you retain the copyright, it is possible 
that your relationship with the company may support an argument that the 
company had an implied non-exclusive license to the work.  That is, you 
retain copyright, and can market it, etc., as you wish, but they might have 
some limited license to retain a copy and modify it according to their needs.  
Again, this will be a highly fact-specific determination.

The implied license can not be an exlusive one, though; exclusive licenses 
are required to be in writing.  17 USC 101 (definition "transfer of copyright 
ownership"), 17 USC 204.  That is, unless you put it in writing, if you have 
a legal status of non-emplyee for purposes of the Copyright Act, you retain 
at least some right to the work.

Hope this helps.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:21:50 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <85x702TF25x301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.032612.3231@panix.com>, oppedahl@panix.com (Carl 
>Oppedahl) writes:
>> A very helpful case on this subject is Mercer v. MacLean, a Third Circuit
>> case
>> on the subject of the work-for-hire doctrine.  I was one of the lawyers on 
>> the appeal.

>Was that the jewelry photographer case?  Did you work with Fred Wilff on that 
>one?

Uh ... no, Mercer v. MacLean was a software copyright case.  It is written 
up at 952 F.2d 769.  I don't recognize the name Wilff in connection with
that case.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:26:12 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

A very helpful case on this subject is Mercer v. MacLean, a Third Circuit case
on the subject of the work-for-hire doctrine.  I was one of the lawyers on 
the appeal.

Also, of course, the Supreme Court case in CCNV v. Reid.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:13:04 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.032612.3231@panix.com>, oppedahl@panix.com (Carl 
Oppedahl) writes:
> A very helpful case on this subject is Mercer v. MacLean, a Third Circuit
> case
> on the subject of the work-for-hire doctrine.  I was one of the lawyers on 
> the appeal.

Was that the jewelry photographer case?  Did you work with Fred Wilff on that 
one?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:52:42 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <2093@sdrc.COM>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
> In article <ld4ijuINNqi5@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian 
Keith 
> Michalk) writes:
> > This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not 
sign
> > a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.
> 
> Without an agreement to the contrary, this is a work-for-hire and they
> own it.  You can ask for anything you want, but they have no legal
> obligation to supply any additional compensation.

For the resaons discussed in my other post of 10/7/92, I think Larry's 
comments are incorrect.  The case turns in part on the legal definition of 
employee, and Brian appears to have a strong case that he is not an employee, 
in which case the work-made-for-hire doctrine is not applicable.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Telnettable source for patent searches? (was: patents)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:56:35 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.222622.3837@umr.edu>, quandt@mcs213e.cs.umr.edu (Brian 
Quandt) writes:
> Does the goverment (or someone else) maintain a telnetable site
> that allows people to do patent searches?  Similar to the archie
> concept but for patents.  Where might this be?

Only Lexis, which is a commercial service, and probably prohibitively 
expensive for your purposes.  If you have a Lexis ID, you can reach it 
through hermes.merit.edu.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct10.034617.21180@unislc.uucp>, thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne 
Forbes) writes:
> : For the resaons discussed in my other post of 10/7/92, I think Larry's 
> : comments are incorrect.  The case turns in part on the legal definition 
of 
> : employee, and Brian appears to have a strong case that he is not an 
employee, 
> : in which case the work-made-for-hire doctrine is not applicable.
> 
> Sorry Terry, I disagree, twice.
> IMAO (In My Amatuer Opinion) the code is clearly a work for hire.  Brians
> status as an employee seems immaterial. 

Does this federal copyright statute change your mind?

"A 'work made for hire' is - 
 (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her 
employment; or
 (2) [long definition that I'm too tired to type omitted; among other things, 
it requires that 'the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed 
by them that the work shall be considered a work for hire", which was not the 
case here, so it's not applicable]".  17 USC 101.

So the definition as a "work for hire" expressly turns on the status as 
employee.

> Brians ownership seems especially
> shaky considering that he did a 'significant' portion of the work at their
> office on their equipment. 

That's one of many factors in determining whether Brian was an employee or 
not.  I see Carl cited to CCNV v. Reid, which listed a number of facts drawn 
from Agency doctrine to determine employee status (things like taxes, where 
the work was performed, choice of hours, etc.).  I'm not saying you throw 
that factor out -- you consider it, along with the others, in determining 
whether the person was an employee.

> Secondly, in case you didn't notice above
> I am pretty sure that the issue of work for hire and employement are
> separate. 

They're clearly not; the work for hire expressly depends on the status of 
employment.  If that's not clear enough from the statute, check out the CCNV 
case, where it's hammered home.

> In this case, I believe the best hope is for a non-exclusive
> right to the code.

That may be the case, if

1) the factors are enough to suggest that the company and Brian are co-
authors; or,
2) Brian's work led the company to believe that they would have the right to 
modify the work, or exercise any other right normally retained for the 
copyright holder.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,alt.conspiracy
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: who owns the goods???
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:27:45 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information



Thayne Forbes, in a message to All on 10-12-92 at 4:38pm, said:

TF>||Sorry Terry, I disagree, twice.
   |________________________________
   |IMAO (In My Amatuer Opinion) the code is clearly a work for hire.  Bria
   |status as an employee seems immaterial.  Brians ownership seems especia
   |shaky considering that he did a 'significant' portion of the work at th
   |office on their equipment.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          I hasten to jump to Terry's defense -- and I always defer to
          him on copyright matters.  Whether a work is "for hire" vel
          non depends most significantly (although not exclusively) on
          the status of the hiree.  In the absence of a traditional
          employer-employee relationship, the hiree owns the work. 
          That's what the CCNV case stands for, and that's why em-
          ployers need to cover their fannies when hiring part-timers,
          stringers and consultants to do any creative work.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  A seminar on time travel will be held 2 weeks ago
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:01:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct10.034617.21180@unislc.uucp> thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes) writes:

>Terry Carroll (tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com) wrote:
>: In article <2093@sdrc.COM>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>: > In article <ld4ijuINNqi5@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian 
>: Keith 
>: > Michalk) writes:
>: > > This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not 
>: sign
>: > > a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.
>: > 
>: > Without an agreement to the contrary, this is a work-for-hire and they
>: > own it.  You can ask for anything you want, but they have no legal
>: > obligation to supply any additional compensation.
>: 
>: For the resaons discussed in my other post of 10/7/92, I think Larry's 
>: comments are incorrect.  The case turns in part on the legal definition of 
>: employee, and Brian appears to have a strong case that he is not an employee, 
>: in which case the work-made-for-hire doctrine is not applicable.

>Sorry Terry, I disagree, twice.
>IMAO (In My Amatuer Opinion) the code is clearly a work for hire.  Brians
>status as an employee seems immaterial.  Brians ownership seems especially
>shaky considering that he did a 'significant' portion of the work at their
>office on their equipment.  Secondly, in case you didn't notice above
>I am pretty sure that the issue of work for hire and employement are
>separate.  In this case, I believe the best hope is for a non-exclusive
>right to the code.

>Not to obfuscate further, but my guideline is that if I walk into the office
>with a substantially complete piece of code at the start of the relationship
>then I walk out with complete ownership.  On the other hand, if I am 
>writing code mostly from scratch, then they own it.  (Although I nearly
>always get an agreement for non-exclusive rights).

>Sorry if this further confuses.  I am going to go right now and find
>the very nice paper that A Lawyer Friend (tm) wrote on the subject.

This is not legal advice, and anybody who cares about this should
talk with a lawyer so that the who fact situation can be taken into
account.  I was one of the lawyers in the MacLean v. Mercer case, 
which like the CCNV case is an important case on the work-for-hire
issue.  Depending on the facts it would not be at all surprising if
a non-employee, even if someone else paid for his/her computer and
paid him/her lots of money, ended up being the legal owner of the
copyright rights in the software.  This assumes you are in the USA.

Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2172 alt.conspiracy:11354
From: griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: U.S. Justice Department Statement on Inslaw Affair
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:25:52 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California

ndallen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:


>[I don't work for the Justice Department; I'm just forwarding its press
>release. - NDA]
> 
>Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

> Justice Department Releases Statement
> To: National Desk
> Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007

>   WASHINGTON, Oct. 13  -- The Department of Justice released today 
>the following statement:

>   Attorney General William P. Barr today told the House Committee
>on the Judiciary that he will not seek the appointment of an
>Independent Counsel as requested in a Sept. 10 letter from a
>majority of the committee's Democratic members.  His reasons for
>this decision were set forth in a letter to the Committee.  Under
>the Independent Counsel statute, only the committee can make these
>materials public, and the attorney general has asked that it do so.
[slew of legal material deleted for sanity reasons]

	This "Justice Dept" is almost unbelievable in their actions...
Have they done anything good for the country!?!?  Who the hell
do they answer to?!  They are the main obstacle in the release
of the J.F.Kennedy records, show little concern regarding Rodney
King incident...  It would seem to me that these bastards should
all be put through the wringer, it's quite apparent that they're
sitting in someones pocket. I'd sure be interested in some history
of this counsel!  
			-Paul

Was it Joan of Arc who said "Do you smell something burning or is it me?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: HomeVax
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:46:17 GMT

Terry Carroll (tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com) wrote:
: In article <2093@sdrc.COM>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
: > In article <ld4ijuINNqi5@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian 
: Keith 
: > Michalk) writes:
: > > This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not 
: sign
: > > a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.
: > 
: > Without an agreement to the contrary, this is a work-for-hire and they
: > own it.  You can ask for anything you want, but they have no legal
: > obligation to supply any additional compensation.
: 
: For the resaons discussed in my other post of 10/7/92, I think Larry's 
: comments are incorrect.  The case turns in part on the legal definition of 
: employee, and Brian appears to have a strong case that he is not an employee, 
: in which case the work-made-for-hire doctrine is not applicable.

Sorry Terry, I disagree, twice.
IMAO (In My Amatuer Opinion) the code is clearly a work for hire.  Brians
status as an employee seems immaterial.  Brians ownership seems especially
shaky considering that he did a 'significant' portion of the work at their
office on their equipment.  Secondly, in case you didn't notice above
I am pretty sure that the issue of work for hire and employement are
separate.  In this case, I believe the best hope is for a non-exclusive
right to the code.

Not to obfuscate further, but my guideline is that if I walk into the office
with a substantially complete piece of code at the start of the relationship
then I walk out with complete ownership.  On the other hand, if I am 
writing code mostly from scratch, then they own it.  (Although I nearly
always get an agreement for non-exclusive rights).

Sorry if this further confuses.  I am going to go right now and find
the very nice paper that A Lawyer Friend (tm) wrote on the subject.
-- 
           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayl[e]
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Prosecuting Attorneys
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:27:15 CDT

Regular guy has questions:

  There are a lot of laws on the books and I presume there is a lot of law
breaking. 

How does the district attorney decide which cases to bring before the court?
How does politics play into the descision whether to file a case? State vs.
 john doe?
How much of a prosecuters descision to file cases of a certain type are 
purely political and not based on what HE/SHE believes to be more serious 
a crime and problem to the city? 
I see a bias in the Minnesota courts for example. As long as it is politically
correct crime to punish, "put the boots to 'em". If it isn't politically
viable or popular, quietly go about your business or even drop it. 

Why do district attorneys appear more interested in their political career 
than they are with prosecuting crimes that appear to be more serious to
the community? They seem to be posturing themselves and pandering to the 
biggest whiners at city hall. Am I way off base? 
Some cases are high profile and it is understandable. 

If a prosecuter screws up, the case is dropped, but only after an arraignment.

Why is it always in the best interest for a regular guy like me to hire
the most powerful attorney in town? Aren't you really buying his/her respect
within the system and NOT necessarly their expertise? I'd like to think 
that the court is nonprejudicial, but I think that is NOT the case. Get
the most respected (and most money) attorney for your ONLY chance. I would
never recommend going to court with out THE best.

This laymen's perception about courts and the law is changing. When at one
time I considered the courts as an unbiased institution with human short-
comings, I beginning to see a more politically active court becoming biased
and political.

Maybe the courts aren't to blame, maybe it is the ignorance and stupidity of
lawmakers passing idiotic laws? Which is it, I'm not sure. 

Enlighten me, please.

Jon (regular guy)
 

"would if they had a legistlative session, and nobody passed a law"..
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:39:37 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <14OCT199220545391@zeus.tamu.edu>, waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III) writes:
> Wrong, John. Murder is a legal term with a strict legal definition. And
> elective abortion does not appear in that legal definition in any U.S.
> state, territory, or even federal penal statutes.
> 
> It appears to me that you are offering a definition of murder that is
> built either wholly or in part on a religious view.
> 
> Walter Fuller

Do you know a legal definition of murder that isn't?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Net-bandit running short of words  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:10:23 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <10292282.421.13557@kcbbs.gen.nz>   
> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:  
>   
> >Mikhail Zeleny is already running short of words :->  
> >Answering public messages by private threats:->:->:->  
>   
> I love your cute little ASCII graphics, Hakki.  How did you ever  
> manage to get the idea for such inventive, original designs?  
>   
> >>In article <10292279.77102.19750@kcbbs.gen.nz> you write:  
>   
> MZ:  
> >>>>It is to be hoped that Mr Rushdie, as well as some of his numerous Weste
> >>>>defenders, in this forum and elsewhere, will see fit to contribute towar
> >>>>the elimination of the continued threat against his life, which also    
> >>>>constitutes a menace for the cardinal principle of Western culture, the 
> >>>>idea of freedom of expression.  I sincerely hope that all participants i
> >>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
>   
> HK:   
> >>>Hey Mikhail!    
> >>>you should very well know by now that the idea of "freedom of expression"
> >>>is just another idea out of basketfull of ideas for us unless you reveal 
> >>>more about the machinary behind it. We need MORE REVELATIONS from YOUR BO
> >>>of BOOKS Man! BRING YOUR BOOK ! so that we can compare it word to word,  
> >>>and see how far you can endure exercising your "freedom of expression"...
> >>>Yes Mikhail, I am challenging you :->Don't forget to bring by the    
> >>>revelations of Rushdie with you.    
>   
> MZ:  
> >>Well, send me your seconds then.  Pistols at 75 meters is my choice.  
>   
> HK:  
> >Hey Mikhail, how can you silence words by pistols Man !   
>   
> My intent is not to silence words, but to put an end to blithering.  I  
> am sure that you can appreciate the difference.  Likewise, I am sure  
> that you know that the choice of arms belongs to the defending party.  
  
choice of arms ?!  
defending party ?!  
just demonstrate us how are you going to defend your :->  
   
;->->>the cardinal principle of Western culture,   
;->->>the idea of freedom of expression.    
  
by your :-> choice of arms :-> pipistol  
  
> HK:  
> >ya pipi, ya pistol ha ?  
>   
> Just make sure you don't put the wrong tool in the right place, old chap.  
  
on the net our tools are words, your pipistols flop short to reach us ..  
even if they are  
  
> 75 meters  
  
in your choice...  
  
BRING YOUR BOOK! MAN!  
if you are the real defending party of your  
   
;->->>the cardinal principle of Western culture,   
;->->>the idea of freedom of expression.    
  
before others kick yours out to take it over....be quick !