[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Read Effects Assoc. Case - It's worth a good la ugh
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Read Effects Assoc. Case - It's worth a good la ugh
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:34:34 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D6808@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Richard Hartman <email@example.com> wrote:
> Implied license? Wouldn't this have been a work-for-hire? (And as a work
> for hire, wouldn't rights be witheld until payment in full? Is there any
> equivilant in work-for-hire situations to a mechanic's lien?)
Work for hire generally does not apply to contractors. If you aren't an
"employee" then unless your contract specifically says that the work in
question belongs to the purchaser, then it doesn't.
There is a famous Supreme Court case Reid v CCNV where CCNV hired Reid, a
sculptor, to create a sculpture for it. He delivered it and then both claimed
copyright on it for purposes of selling replicas. Reid won. The same principle
applies to architecture drawings.
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.