Copyright law and the evil "Work made for hire" agreement...

 

Here's a simplified breakdown of the "legalese" in the the deceptive "Work made for hire" agreement.

Federal copyright law basics.
Creator owns copyright from moment of creation.
Does not require registration, but that is helpful in cases of dispute.
Creator grants license to users/clients for publication.

Only exception is a deceptive agreement titled “work made for hire” where creator transfers copyright.
All work is technically "for hire"...
This is really just copyright transfer agreement that was made to benefit large studios in cases with multiple creators to consolidate ownership. In this case most are paid well.
However, it gets abused by some cretins to manipulate creators into bad deals for low rates.
Unless it's a large project with appropriate rates, never agree to “work made for hire” agreements because they rob you of your rights and leverage to make sure client pays and uses the material appropriately.

All "work" is for hire if you are paid.
You do not need to negotiate your copyrights with clients. You own them from creation, regardless of pay. The only difference is if you sign them away in a “work made for hire” agreement.
It is a written instrument both parties must sign. It is not automatically the property of someone else just because you are paid to do a job.

It is a mechanism to protect artists. Pretty much the only real one you have.

It is crucial that creators understand this and retain their rights and not give them away like some "bonus" to land jobs...

To clarify, the client only owns the copyright if you sign it over to them in a written instrument called a “work made for hire” agreement, Otherwise, automatically, by Federal Law a creator owns copyright for their work.

Just because you work for someone does not make your creations “work made for hire”...


Remember when I said it is “deceptive”…???
Understand legal definition in this context, “work-made-for-hire” does NOT mean all forms of work, for which you are hired. It is “Legalese”. “Work-made-for-hire” is a legal definition of a designated type of arrangement secured and identified by a specific written instrument.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

The way it is worded here can cause most people to misunderstand. The phrasing has been changed in years past, to have that effect, intentionally. Library of Congress used to spell it out more clearly in older documents on the subject. However they have been influenced by certain powerful interests that benefit from artist ignorance… But the law has not changed.

You create it, you own the ©!!!!!!!

UNLESS you have signed it over in a “Work-made-for-hire” agreement.

Yes, I am being blunt and repetitive because I have seen SO MANY young !@#$%s argue this point after failing to read the actual law or listen to advice of seasoned professionals. This is the kind of chicken shit that can ruin an industry. Especially when they make it standard practice to sign away copyrights for chicken scratch. That's suuuper baaaaad mmmkkkaaaayyyy?



This breaks down the legal definition in this context.
Go here, read this. https://www.owe.com/resources/legalities/4-what-is-work-made-for-hire/

There are 3 points that must be met to be legal.

Focus on “(3) your contract with your client explicitly states that your work is a “work made for hire.””

Bottom-line: If you don’t sign a contract that “explicitly states that your creation is a “work made for hire” and your copyright is transferred to another party, you own the ©. Regardless of any and everything else…

Copy right is one of the most important leverage points artists have to “influence” clients to pay their bill and not use their creation in a way that may hurt their "brand".
It is important to the industry future that artists know this right and preserve it. Otherwise it will become expected in deals and lose all value.