Author: Slater Wold
Date: 22:58:59 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2002 at 01:38:55, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On May 03, 2002 at 23:54:15, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On May 03, 2002 at 23:45:22, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>This seems to be an issue of contracting a work vs. commissioning a work. In >>>general, an author under contract to write "one or more books" without >>>guidelines retains copyright on those books, while an author who is commissioned >>>to write a specific book, with some guidelines, does not retain copyright. I'm >>>sure this can be altered by the specific contract between the two parties. >>> >>>Unfortunately, it can be difficult to define "commissioned work" accurately. >>>Textbooks and reference books are mostly commissioned works, most other books >>>aren't. Is the Rebel book a commissioned work, or simply a contracted one? >>>Maybe that's the important question here. >> >>Let me reinterate: >> >>"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 key being "..or a work specially ordered or commissioned.." > >IMO, the key words are "in certain specified circumstances", and "When a work >qualifies". What are the "certain specified circumstances" mentioned? And does >the Rebel book qualify? > >>Specially ordered work is contract work. > >Specially ordered work is commissioned work, not contract work. > >I can have a contract that says I will write 3 more books over the next 5 years, >for X sum of money. Those books are contracted works, but they are not >specially ordered, and they are not commissioned. The author still retains >copyright. > >>Commissioned work is commissioned work. >> >>Bottom line, if Ed and Christophe approached Noomen and asked for a book, in >>return for money, the book belongs to them. > >This is my point of contention - I think your statement is false. Whatever the >circumstances here, I'm not convinced the book should be considered a >"commissioned work". And if it is, its copyright status could depend on the >contract made between Ed and Jeroen. > >>While I am not 100% certain they >>did, my guess would be this is what happened. I am 100% certain Noomen HAS been >>compensated for his work. > >Yes, of course he has. > >>Besides, I was just making the point, it is a VERY real possibility that the >>book doesn't even belong to Noomen. > >It is a possibility, I agree. I just don't think it's the correct one. In >addition, we're both applying US copyright law to this, which may or may not >hold 100% true in the Netherlands. Do to the following documents, the SAME EXACT copyright laws exsist in The Netherlands: Bilateral Nov. 20, 1899 Berne Nov. 1, 1912 (Paris) 2 UCC Geneva June 22, 1967 UCC Paris Nov. 30, 1985 Phonogram Oct. 12, 1993 WTO Jan. 1, 1995
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.