<<
Copy right law seems to favor the author.
<<

That would be the case...

<<
An independent developer owns the rights unless a signed agreement says otherwise.
<<

Not necessarily. If the nature of the work is to add to an existing body of work, it may actually be work for hire.

Also, independent developer does not necessarily mean indpendent contractor. Being an indepdent contractor is as much a legal disction as anything else. A few cases have held (Aymes case to name one...) - have held that an independent developer - given the totality of the circumstances, actually qualifies as an employee. This was an application of the Reid Test as defined by the US Supreme Court.

Presuming of course that one is actually an indendent contractor and absent a written agreement and not falling into the situations that outline the exceptions, I would then agree that the work in question is not work for hire.


>An employee, hired to write C+ code, and subsequently tasked to write a VFP program comes under work for hire. The case could be made that since the employee was hired for C+ (and not VFP), that the employee may own the rights to the VFP stuff.
>

I don't know how you could make that argument. The primary issue is the status of the person: contractor vs. employee. Another important issue is the nature of the person's job. If the person is a developer, it most likely makes no difference whether they are using VFP or C++. It would seem to make for an impractical situation.

That said, I invite you to make an argument to the contrary...


< JVP >