Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:35:24 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 20:31:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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. I believe this is wrong: open any book and look for the copywrite in the first few pages. You'll find something like (C) 1997, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., not (C) followed by the author. James
This page took 0.01 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.