John,

>
>So long as elements of the Reid test are not met, this may be true. The idea behind the Reid test is to determine if in reality, you are acting in the capacity of an employee. Even if you "indendent", you can still be considered an employee for purposes of determining whether work for hire is involved. Anything an employee does is work for hire for the most part. There are exceptions in cases where what the employee works in is not part of their job and on their own time.
>

Like the IRS's 20 questions. Clear as mud<bg>.

>Also, regardless of whether you are an employee or an independent contractor, if the nature of your work adds to an existing product, it will most likely be considered work for hire.
>
>Clearly, there is a gaping loophole in the copyright act. This means that we are left to judicial interpretation. We can thank the Supreme Court for forumulating the Reid Test in 1989. However, it is not an inclusive test. You could meet only 1 of the elements and still be considered an employee. It is up to judicial interpretation.
>

Gaping, I see it more as Grand Canyon sized.

Thanks again, for reminding us of just how many gray areas there are in the work we do under contract. Computer law is still new and evolving, however, very slowly.

Jacci