Talk:Work for hire

message: I had difficulty understanding the concept of "work for hire" after reading the first paragraph on this page. However, after briefly reading this website http://www.stopworkforhire.com/site/what-is-work-for-hire/ it became very clear to me what it meant. I think my difficulty arose out of the lack of understanding the term "work". Perhaps it would be clearer if "work" or "a work" here were clearly defined as some kind of material produced for a contractee. Either way, I think the introduction/first paragraph should be re-written to introduce people who (like myself) are unfamiliar with the terms. (Too many abstract terms are being used) DoisKoh (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ease of understanding

message: The second sentence states: "According to copyright law in most countries, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author." As far as I know, this only applies to the US - not even in other common law countries like the UK.  The term "work for hire" is only used in the US, but there is something similar called "works produced in course of employment" in the UK. The difference is vital: the US "work for hire" can apply to any commissioned work, even if it's done by someone who isn't employed by the party who has commissioned the work, whilst the UK term requires that the person is a proper employee. Also, all moral rights, except the right to be recognised as the creator, remain with the creator in UK law, even if the creator is employed. Consequently, the employer can never become the author in the UK, just the owner of the economic rights. In civil law jurisdictions, the employer also often acquires the economic rights to the work through a clause in the employment contract, Similarly, the economic rights to a commsiioned work are also transferred to the commissioner as part of the commssioning contract. But the moral rights can't be transferred to someone else, so they always remain with the creator, even if the creator is an employee. Some civil law countries allow moral rights to be waived (i.e. the creator promises in writing not to make use of them), but only for specific works and for specific reasons (i.e. an employer can't include a general moral rights waiver in an employment contract). Thomas Blomberg 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the UK that's almost true, but not quite.  As you say, a UK employer is under no obligation to identify the work of an employee (CDPA sec. 79(3)); but furthermore, the employer may authorise any treatment of the work (derogatory or not), if the employee creator has not been identified (CDPA sec. 82).  Furthermore, in the UK they may require their employees to waive any such rights as a contractual condition of employment.  But you're right that this kind of handling only applies to work created by employees, not to commissioned work, (unless the commissioned creator has contractually waived thir rights, and/or not asserted them): and you're right that it would be useful to compare/contrast the situation to that in further countries, where the position is even less like that in the USA.  Jheald 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Punctuation: "its", not "it's". 86.154.8.126 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This is very US centred

message: 'By contrast, Adobe Systems lists many of the developers of Photoshop in the credits for it.' should be changed to 'By contrast, Adobe Systems lists many of the developers of Photoshop in it's credits.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.236.98 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuation: "its", not "it's". 86.154.8.126 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: The following troubles me:
:"Similarly, newspapers routinely credit news articles written by their staff, and publishers credit the writers and illustrators who produce comics featuring characters such as Batman or Spider-Man, but the publishers hold copyrights to the work."
Most of the comics in daily newspapers (but not editorial cartoons) are syndicated and copyright is owned by the syndicate or the author/artist/illustrator. The copyright is quite separate from that on the newspaper itself. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified the comics reference to make it clear that it refers to comic books, not to newspaper strips. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comics 

message: The original article states that, due to the US statutory termination rights, assignments of non-work for hire copyrights are "effectively limited to only 35 years because the author or the author's heirs could exercise their right to terminate the assignment."  This statement is inexact. The termination of one's transfer or assignment of rights is not automatic. Therefore, absent an author (or his qualified heirs) executing the formalities to terminate the assignment, the transfer or assignment is not at all limited.
The more accurate statement here is that the assignment/transfer is effectively guaranteed for only 35 years (40 for publication rights).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.49.100 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment not effectively limited to 35 years 

message: I just reverted someone's recent edits which claimed that work-for-hire only applied t the work of ful-time employees in the US. This is not the case; the law is explicit that it can apply to the work of independent contractors. See this brochure for more information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-employee work for hire 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Work for hire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081212020422/http://www.bc.edu:80/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/41_3/02_TXT.htm to http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/41_3/02_TXT.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150803192540/http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140803122642/http://www.jenkins-ip.com:80/patlaw/cdpa1.htm to http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s11
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified