Authorship, Part 2

Loading...

Del curso dictado por Duke University

Copyright for Educators & Librarians

172 calificaciones

Duke University

Copyright for Educators & Librarians

172 calificaciones

Fear and uncertainty about copyright law often plagues educators and sometimes prevents creative teaching. This course is a professional development opportunity designed to provide a basic introduction to US copyright law and to empower teachers and librarians at all grade levels. Course participants will discover that the law is designed to help educators and librarians.

De la lección

A Framework for Thinking about Copyright

In the U.S., copyright is first and foremost a federal law passed by Congress under authority given it by the Constitution, where it says that Congress is allowed to pass laws to (among other things) promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries. This authorization allows Congress to adopt both copyright laws which protect creative expression, and patent laws, which are very different and provide exclusive rights in inventions. In this unit we will examine what is copyright and how it happens.

Authorship, Part 1 7:51

Authorship, Part 24:20

Authorship, Part 3 5:09

Conoce a los instructores

Kevin Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Former Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
Lisa A. Macklin, J.D.,M.L.S.
Director, Scholarly Communications Office
Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University
Anne Gilliland, JD, MLS
Scholarly Communications Officer
University Libraries, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Now, we do need to touch on one other thing before we leave, and

that is independent contractors.

So, there are times when independent contractors are hired.

And it is possible that there's independent contractors.

And the work that they created would be owned by the party or

the employer that hired them.

>> With regular employees, it's very easy for

things to see that they're created as part of their employment or not.

The cool thing about Joanne is that she does this

because she loves to train animals, and it has nothing to do with her real job.

So as you say, the distinction is really easy.

For independent contractors, on the other hand, it can be quite difficult.

As the definition of work for hire tells us, two things have to be true

in order for a work that's created by an independent contractor to be owned

by the person who commissioned it, that is the employer.

Only if these two things are both true,

does the employer own the work instead of the contractor who actually created it?

One is that it has to fall into one of nine listed categories.

So lots of things just don't even fall into the categories

of things that can be work made for hire by an independent contractor.

And the second requirement is that there has to be an explicit

written contract signed by the parties, that says, this will be a work for hire.

>> So if I'm doing something as an independent contractor that's on that list

of nine, but there's nothing signed, it's still not a work made for hire.

>> That's correct, and

that means that a lot of people assume that if I paid for it, I own it.

And they're incorrect,

at least with independent contractors unless there's that explicit agreement.

So, it has to be in one of those categories and

there has to be an agreement.

That's a great point.

In Joanne's case, it was interesting because there was an agreement with

a funding agency for Joanne to develop her curriculum.

She had asked for a grant, and gotten it, outside of her regular employment,

but there was an agreement with the funding agency.

But that agreement did not explicitly say

that the work would be a work made for hire.

So, the law tells us that if, if it doesn't say

that it's gotta be very explicit, Joanne still own the copyright in her curriculum.

It's very important to note this truth about work made for

hire that, simply because one person or entity paid for

the work, that does not necessarily mean that they're going to own the copyright.

We ha, there are lots of independent contractors who continue to own

the copyright of the materials that they created.

You know I, I always think we said that the Federal government

doesn't own copyright in their works.

But if I go and visit the Grand Canyon they're going to give me a glossy brochure

full of really beautiful photographs and I'm sure those photographs were taken by

people who were independent contractors working for the government and

they still own their copyright.

So you can't always assume that the government exception applies because there

may be independent contractors.

There is actually a really important supreme court case about work for

hire, in the context of an independent contractor,

it's called Community for Creative Non-Violence versus Reid.

And the point is very clear.

Even though the Community for Creative Non-Violence paid Mr.

Reid a lot of money, for the sculpture that he was commissioned to design for

them, he remained the copyright holder.

There was no mention of work for hire in the contract between the two parties.

And even though, and a sculpture,

in fact, does not fit into any of the categories for work made for hire.

So on both prongs of the test, this sculpture that Mr.

Reid created was not a work made for hire, and even though he was paid a lot of

money, the Community for Creative Non-Violence didn't own the copyright.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play