Who here really knows what that means?

Prince once said something about it...


-
[This message was edited Fri Jul 5 18:05:35 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

"Work for hire" means that you are offering a service to an end product. When you hire a painter to paint your house, he doesn't usually charge you a royalty fee.

Related to music, the music companies feel that an artist's body of work is funded by the label; therefore, the product that results is from the "work for hire" viewpoint. What this does is put the artists in the role of delivering a product to the label, rather than the companies providing a service to the musicians.

Dauphin said:

Well I'm glad at least one person was able to come up with an answer.
And a fairly good one I might add.

However Dauphin, do you also know what the legal status of a "work made for hire" is?
In other words, do you know when the law considers a work (not a 'product') "made for hire" and what the consequences in terms of copyright ownership are?

That is what I am mainly aiming at.

and what it means in that sinn of business if you receive the answer: stay free, yourname

found this in the Music Business Handbook & Career Guide...

A work made for hire is 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other works, such as musical arrangements...

goes on to say that if a composer is engaged on a work made for hire basis, the employer is considered under the law as the author of the creative work, and the author, under copyright law, is thus the owner of works. so the employer owns it...

Very good twonabomber...

especially the highlighting of the words: "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire"

This thus means that any kind of work (including a complete sound recording) can be considered a work made for hire, as long as parties expressly agree to it in a written instrument signed by them.


" the employer is considered under the law as the author of the creative work, and the author, under copyright law, is thus the owner of works. so the employer owns it..."

Indeed.

now what do you think of this...

copyright indeed normally is the property of natural author and the duration of copyright in most countries is the live of the author + 70 years...

But how long is a "work for hire" protected? The employer (usually a company) gets its copyright protected for 95 years after first publication. This means thus that if I would make work for hire right now it would be the intellectual property of my employer untill 2098!!

Now... if we consider the following, that:

1) Congress has tried to put the word "sound recording" expressly in the same category as other "works for hire" a while ago.
(That law was passed on the instigation of the RIAA of course , but was quickly reversed when artist organizations lobbyed Congress to take the word "sound recording" out of the work for hire provision, because it could and probably would essentially make any kind of sound recording a "work for hire". )

2) If this would have passed and if all recording artists with work for hire contracts are never seen by the law to be the owner of the copyright in the sound recording made by them... then what kind of situation are we in?


Does anyone here think that it is justifiable to say that for example "Sign of the times", a double album almost fully and completely produced, arranged, composed and performed (in other words authored/created/made) by prince, which sold many, more than enough, copies already for the record company to make their profit, should remain to be considered a work for hire owned by WB up untill 95 years from the year 1987? in other words untill the year 2082??!!

Or would you say that it is more justifiable to say that that can not have been the meaning of Congress when they made these laws?
In other words that there should be a way for an artist/band to regain ownership of their sound recordings, even though it was considered to be a work for hire.


-
[This message was edited Sun Jul 7 17:17:25 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]
[This message was edited Sun Jul 7 17:23:42 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

the bold print was that way in the book. i didn't embellish a thing.

the more i read that book, the less involved in the biz i wanted to be...

twonabomber said:

that's okay twonabomber...

but does that mean that you have been thinking about being "involved" in the business, but don't feel like it anymore, because/since ...???

In any case artists should be able to retain ownership of their recordings as well as their compositions and lyrics (publishingrights). The only thing is that you have to make the right agreements with the right companies/persons for you... and that can be a pretty hard thing to do.

i don't think of it anymore. i got the book back in 88 or so, when i took a "Survival in the Music Industry" class. i was willing to do "the work," etc, but when i started reading about some of the shit the industry passes along as standard practice, i started thinking the deck was stacked against the artists. i read enough prior to taking the class that i knew if anything happened, to keep my publishing rights, but the rest of it turned me off. now i play and write for my own enjoyment. keeps me sane...

Look at it this way:

Back in the day, Bards sang for Kings. Painters painted for Popes. Etc. etc. etc.

But does art really belong to anybody?

Isn't art the manipulation of something that already exists by God's will?

Isn't God the true owner?

Or do you not believe in God?

We might need some scuba gear for this

Hrmm...that;s what I thought

twonabomber said:

i think i see what you mean. But i would like to add that you can remain sane if you close a good deal. once again you have to know what you want and get it too. if they don't want you or let you, then you can be pretty sure that whatever 'deal' you will then make, will not be a 'good deal'.

Dauphin said:

sorry dauphin, i haven't had too much time lately. i will try to respond to your other post.


-
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 9:04:07 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

Dauphin said:

And then the age of 'enlightenment' arrived and under the influence of many french revolutionary writers 'le droit de auteur' was born in france. It was seens as justified to give 'creators' (limited) control over their works, because of the PERSONAL connection/bond with their creations.

A little earlier there was already 'copyright' in England, but it focused less on the author. The first copyright act was called 'the statute of anne' from 1709. It more or less lay the foundation of copyright as we know it today.



well, according to the systems of law and many philosophers that have since arrived on the scene... yes.
However, one must see that copyright ownwership doesn't last forever. that is a very important limitation to an authors excluive rights. 70 years after his death (or 95 years after publication in case of a work for hire-- in the USA i.e) the work will fall in the public domain and it will belong to anybody and everybody. no one will be able to claim ownership anymore.
Thus ULTIMATELY... yes art belongs to anybody.


well you could argue that it is. But isn't it God's will that an artist creates?



I can see what you mean, that if God is to be seen as the actual creator of everything and artist are merely 'duplicators'he should be the owner as well. But in that case artist would be infringing on Gods rights and that doesn't seem to be the case accordeing to anyone i
know.

I rather believe that god doesn't hold the same ideas of property like we do. I rather believe that he offers us talent and inspiration and the means to create and then lets us use 'our' creations freely and hopefully wisely.
He would more or less waive his rights (if he has any)

How we deal with art then becomes the matter of the creators, the exploiters and the users. the legislator is supposed to reflect and balance the wishes and interests of these three groups and turn them into a well functioning law.


erm yes, but that is besides the point.




maybe but that depends on how you look at it.

i think you are on to some interesting and thought provoking points...

-
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 9:03:43 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]