Should designer own copyright?

[Forest]

if you pay for it you own it

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Forest

if you pay for it you own it

When I hire someone to do design work for me, they are working for me and I therefore own the work produced.

Not true. You need a Work for Hire and an Assignment of Rights to truly own it. In the US, copyright is a akin to a property right than can only change ownership through a written agreement.

Without them, as the person paying for it, you only have a license to use their work.

There is an exception - unless the person performing the work is a salaried employee with taxes and all the other benefits that come with it. You cannot 1099 someone and then claim they are an employee. If they are an employee you own everything they do in the course of their employment.

[Hell Puppy]

At WORST, a custom site is going to be a joint copyright. My text, my specs, my color selections, my content used to build it, there's no way a designer can claim to own the copyright. If the hiring agreement isn't clear, they MIGHT be able to pull off claiming joint ownership.

In every case where I've hired a contractor to do anything, whether it's code, design or even shooting photos, it's a "work made for hire" agreement. It is my understanding that in that case, I own it all, no different than if they were a full time employee.

[softball]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Not true. You need a Work for Hire and an Assignment of Rights to truly own it. In the US, copyright is a akin to a property right than can only change ownership through a written agreement.

Without them, as the person paying for it, you only have a license to use their work.

There is an exception - unless the person performing the work is a salaried employee with taxes and all the other benefits that come with it. You cannot 1099 someone and then claim they are an employee. If they are an employee you own everything they do in the course of their employment.

I have been around this block with all the major us tv networks. Their "opinion" is they hired me, put me into the situation to take the images, rented my equipment, they now own it. It falls under the industry standard argument. My work has been used over and over again in various documentaries, news magazine programmes and news shows and historical works.
I suppose that ultimately myself and a legion of other photo journalists could be owed rather large sums....
Here is the case we most commonly discussed...
http://www.ncac.org/art-law/op-dauman.cfm
Its pretty well known in the biz.

[pornlaw]

That case is not on point. It states that Dauman owns the image, not Time. And that case is merely a decision on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, not on the merits of the case.

[bluemoney]

Originally Posted by Forest

if you pay for it you own it

I agree