Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 17:31:32 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 20:10:23, Slater Wold wrote: >On May 03, 2002 at 19:36:53, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On May 03, 2002 at 17:13:59, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>First of all, I want to state that I do NOT support and/or condone the stealing >>>of others works for their own good. If you want a good opening book, make your >>>own. Jeroen spent a LOT of time perfecting his book, and it IS his work, not >>>anyone elses. Don't be lazy. Make your own. >>> >>>HOWEVER, in every case, there are 2 sides. Each side has their arguement, and >>>not always is someone clearly the winner of the arguement. Remember, even the >>>most cold-blooded killers get a defense in court, and who wants to defend >>>someone who you KNOW is guilty? Neverless, I take legal matters such as Robert >>>Hyatt takes math and science. You post a thread that 432423 + 234325 is >>>somewhere around 66,000 and Hyatt's going to add them together, and give you an >>>ACTUAL figure. That's all I am doing here, giving an ACTUAL figure. >>> >>> >>>The company I work for gives all its employees free legal representation. While >>>not all legal procedings are covered, all questions/research over the phone are. >>> I called a "company" lawyer a few days ago and presented him with Jeroen's >>>problem. This is what he told me: >>> >>>1.) If Jeroen has *ever* gotten paid 1 penny from Rebel, the books are not his. >>> If Ed or Christophe have ever bought him dinner, given him any kind of reward >>>and/or compensation, he has NO legal claim to his books. This is a "for-hire" >>>copyright, and according to US and International copyright laws, if you are >>>compensated for something that recieves and/or is claimed under copyright laws, >>>the copyright is not that of the creator, rather the person who paid for the >>>work. >>> >> >>I don't believe this. Rebel and Jeroen could come to *any* agreement they are >>both happy with, and draw up a contract on that basis. That may mean that the >>copyright for the books goes to Rebel, or it may mean that Jeroen retains the >>copyright to his books. There's nothing automatic about it: it's based on the >>contract that is drawn up. This is certainly true in the UK. I have in front of >>me my contract of employment, which states that some things I produce belong to >>me, and others belong to my employers. Further, it states: >> >> "The above sub-clauses [relating to who gets copyright to what] >> shall apply except where agreement to the contrary is reached >> between the employee and the [employer]." >> >> >>Regards >> >>Andrew > >From the United States Copyright Office: > >Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, >there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, >which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her >employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified >circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer or >commissioning party is considered to be the author. The question is whether the Rebel book qualifies as a "work made for hire" in that sense. I doubt it does. That would be like saying that Stephen King (or any author) does not hold copyright on many of his books because they were commissioned by the publishing company - on the contrary, the author holds copyright on all of them, not the publisher.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.