home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Copyright 1991 by S. Kitterman Jr. and the Las Vegas PC Users Group,
- 316 Bridger Avenue, Suite 240; Las Vegas, NV 89101. All rights reserved.
- This file was originally printed in the December 1991 issue of The Bytes
- of Las Vegas, a publication of the Las Vegas PC Users Group, and may be
- reprinted only by nonprofit organizations.
- Please give proper credit to the author and The Bytes of Las Vegas.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Copyrights and Computer Software: Part III
-
- by Sam Kitterman, Jr., LVPCUG
-
- [The purpose of these articles is to give general information
- regarding copyrights and how they pertain to protection of
- software. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor should
- it be relief upon to address a particular situation since the tone
- of these articles is general in nature.]
-
- As discussed in last month's article, the Copyright Act
- requires a protectible work to have been "original" to its author.
- Yet, once a work has been created and a copyright registration is
- being sought for that work, who owns the copyright? That is the
- subject of this month's article.
- The Copyright Act distinguishes between three types of
- ownership of a copyrighted work, i.e.,
-
- (a) Where the author is the sole creator of the work
- and the work was NOT a work "made for hire", then
- the author is also the owner of the work;
-
- (b) Where there were joint authors of the work and
- they had agreed that the work would be jointly-
- owned, then the joint authors are the joint
- owners of the work; and,
-
- (c) Where the author(s) were creating the work as a
- work "made for hire", then the author's employer
- will become the owner of the work.
- Perhaps the easiest of these situations to understand is (a),
- i.e., single author is also the owner of the copyright in the work
- if he or she created the work for themselves, not for another
- party. 201(a) of the Copyright Act states this as follows:
-
- Copyright in a work protected under this title
- vests initially in the author or authors of
- the work. The authors of a joint work are
- coowners of copyright in the work.
- The second of these situations to understand is that of joint
- authorship - joint ownership. Although the above subsection seems
- to be clear, the Copyright Act requires more than parties to have
- been joint authors in order for joint ownership of the copyright to
- be found.
- 101 of the Copyright Act (Definitions) states that a joint
- work
-
- is a work prepared by two or more authors
- with the intention that their contributions
- be merged into inseparable or interdependent
- parts of a unitary whole.
- As noted in the House Report on the 1976 Copyright Act, the
- "touchstone" of a joint work
-
- is the intention, at the time the writing was
- done, that the parts be absorbed or combined
- into an integrated unit, although the parts
- themselves may be either 'inseparable' (as
- [in] the case of a novel or painting or
- 'interdependent' (as in the case of a
- motion picture, opera, or the words and music
- of a song. The test of joint authorship under
- the 1976 Act...[is] 'to constitute joint
- authorship, there must be a common design.'
- In summary, a "joint work" will be found where there are
- multiple authors, they had agreed that the "Work" of their labors
- would be one Work, and that they had further agreed that they
- should be treated as joint authors/owners of that Work.
- The third of these situations of ownership is that of a "work
- made for hire". Once again, the Copyright Act itself gives us
- a general framework for such works. As defined by the Act, a "work
- made for hire" is---
-
- (1) A work prepared by an employee within the scope
- of his or her employment; or
-
- (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for
- use as a contribution to a collective work, as a
- part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
- as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a
- compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as
- answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the
- parties expressly agree in a written instrument
- signed by them that the work shall be considered a
- work made for hire. For the purpose of the
- foregoing sentence, a "supplementary work" is a work
- prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to
- a work by another author for the purpose of
- introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining,
- revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use
- of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords,
- pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables,
- editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer
- material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and
- indexes, and an "instructional test" is a literary,
- pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication
- and with the purpose of use in systematic
- instructional activities.
- 17 U.S.C. 101.
- Simplified, a "work made for hire" will be found either where
- the work was done as a result of, and related to, your employment
- or under those specific categories set forth above in "2" WHERE the
- parties had specifically agreed in writing that such work would
- constitute a "work made for hire".
- Yet, what is employment? For example, what if you are an
- independent contractor and there is no agreement between you and
- the party who hired you concerning ownership of the copyright? Who
- owns the copyright in the Work?
- This issue was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in
- the case of Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490
- U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 2166 (1989). In that case a non-profit
- organization hired a sculpter to do a sculpture concerning the
- plight of the homeless. There was no language in the contract
- concerning who would own the copyright in the Work. After the work
- had been completed, the parties began arguing about control of the
- piece and subsequently sued each other. Although the local court
- ruled the organization owned the copyright because it was a "work
- made for hire", the Supreme Court upheld the reversal of that
- decision, a decision holding that the independent contractor owned
- the copyright in the work.
- In so ruling, the Supreme Court focused on three issues:
-
- (1) The nature of the employment relationship between
- the organization and the sculpter, i.e.,
- what is called "master-servant" in the law;
-
- (2) Whether the organization meaninfully exercised
- any control over the sculpter's work; and,
-
- (3) Whether the organization treated the sculpter as
- an employee for purposes of benefits and taxes.
- Although much of that decision is beyond the scope of this
- article, what must be remembered when you are doing work for
- someone else is the following:
- (a) Are you an employee?
- (b) Is the work you are doing something that falls
- within the scope of your normal duties for your
- employer?
- (c) Does your employer supervise the work?
-
- If the answers to all three of the above questions are yes,
- then the work is most likely a work made for hire and your
- employer, not you, owns rights in that work.
-
- (a) Are you an independent contractor?
- (b) Do you have a written agreement wherein ownership
- of the "Work" is given to your employer?
-
- If the answers to the above two questions are yes, then your
- employer will be the owner of the work.
-
- (a) Are you an independent contractor and there is no
- written agreement concerning copyright ownership of
- the Work?
- (b) How much control does your employer exercise over
- your work?
- (c) How are you treated by your employer concerning
- benefits and taxes?
-
- Again, if you are an independent contractor, acting
- mostly on your own with some input from your employer,
- and you receive no benefits/tax considerations from
- the employer, then you will most likely be the owner
- of the copyright in the work, not your employer.
-
- On the other hand, if your employer takes a very
- active role in supervising your work, exercises active
- control over your operations, and treats you as an
- inside employee for purposes of benefits and taxes, then
- your employer, not you, will most likely own the
- copyright in the work.
-
- This may seem to be complicated. It is! Yet, the impact of
- determining who owns the copyright in a work can be great. For
- example, if you own a graphics arts studio and are hired to create
- a coin design, the question of ownership of the copyright in that
- coin design must be considered. Indeed, it can be a means of
- ensuring that you, as an independent contractor, are paid for the
- work you do for others. So remember, if you're going to create a
- work, make sure you know who is going to own the copyright in it!
-
- ----------------------------------
- Copyright 1991--S. Kitterman Jr.
-
- [Sam Kitterman, a member of the Las Vegas PC Users Group is an attorney
- with the firm of Quirk, Tratos & Rothel; he specializes in issues
- related to computer software. This is the third of a series
- of articles Sam is writing for The Bytes of Las Vegas.
- It was originally published in the December 1991 issue of The Bytes of Las
- Vegas, the official newsletter of the Las Vegas PC Users Group.]
-
-