to assign additional projects Hired party’s discretion Method of payment Role in hiring and paying assistants Regular course of employer’s business Payment of employee benefits, taxes Note: Based on RSA, RTA §7.07(3)(a) Employee has a principal that controls – manner/means of agent’s performance of work Working Within the Scope of Employment (RSA § 228; Roeslin) Kind of work he is employed to perform Occurs substantially within authorized work hours Actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer Note: RTA § 7.07(2) Performing work assigned by employer, or course of – conduct subject to employer’s control. Not when acts occur within independent course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the employer. Independent Contractor? Specially ordered or commissioned Within an enumerated category: Contribution to collective work, part of a motion picture/AV work, translation, supplementary work (intro/conclusion, illustration, etc.), compilation, test, answer for test, atlas With written agreement signed by both parties IDing it as work for hire Policy Authors that assign rights after creation (rather than work for hire) can terminate the agreement after 35y can’t if it is a work for hire – Length of copyright is different for hire are ineligible for rights” “moral Employee executed employer’s vision, employer costs/risks Employer is in best position to exploit the work Lower transaction costs employment benefits in exchange for copyright – Cir. teach exception academic publications are not works for hire – (SDNY 1999) Lindsay v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. Titanic Documentary on salvage of Titanic story boards, drawings, camera angles, – shooting sequences, design/fabrication of lighting, etc. Held: is not an author for holding the camera, work represents original Δ Π’s intellectual conception/vision/control (7th Cir. 1994) Erickson v. Trinity Theater stopped paying royalties on the plays wrote arguing actors are Δ Π Δ’s Held: is not a co-author without individually copyrightable contribution Δ – more than directions/ideas, crap about discouraging/encouraging collaborations (9th Cir. 1999) Aalmuhammed v. Lee Held: consultant on who made substantial revisions, and Malcolm X, Π, collaborated to create 2 scenes was not a co-author
to assign additional projects Hired party’s discretion Method of payment Role in hiring and paying assistants Regular course of employer’s business Payment of employee benefits, taxes Note: Based on RSA, RTA §7.07(3)(a) – Employee has a principal that controls manner/means of agent’s performance of work Working Within the Scope of Employment (RSA § 228; Roeslin) Kind of work he is employed to perform Occurs substantially within authorized work hours Actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer Note: RTA § 7.07(2) – Performing work assigned by employer, or course of conduct subject to employer’s control. Not when acts occur within independent course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the employer. Independent Contractor? Specially ordered or commissioned Within an enumerated category: Contribution to collective work, part of a motion picture/AV work, translation, supplementary work (intro/conclusion, illustration, etc.), compilation, test, answer for test, atlas With written agreement signed by both parties IDing it as work for hire Policy Authors that assign rights after creation (rather than work for hire) can terminate the agreement after 35y – can’t if it is a work for hire Length of copyright is different for hire are ineligible for “moral rights” Employee executed employer’s vision, employer costs/risks Employer is in best position to exploit the work Lower transaction costs – employment benefits in exchange for copyright Cir. teach exception – academic publications are not works for hire Lindsay v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. Titanic (SDNY 1999) Documentary on salvage of Titanic – story boards, drawings, camera angles, shooting sequences, design/fabrication of lighting, etc. Held: Δ is not an author for holding the camera, work represents Π’s original intellectual conception/vision/control Erickson v. Trinity Theater (7th Cir. 1994) Δ stopped paying royalties on the plays Π wrote arguing Δ’s actors are Held: Δ is not a co-author without individually copyrightable contribution – more than directions/ideas, crap about discouraging/encouraging collaborations Aalmuhammed v. Lee (9th Cir. 1999) Held: Π, consultant on Malcolm X, who made substantial revisions, and collaborated to create 2 scenes was not a co-author
Copyright%20Fromer%20Fall%202013.docx