Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 01:32:00 05/04/02
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. This may apply if someone works without a written contract. If both parties have agreed a contract, anything in the contract about copyright must supercede this. In the case of Mr PostIt Notes, presumably he had nothing in *his* contract about copyright. That's not to say that Jeroen doesn't. Andrew
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.