>If the law says:

>If the author is an independent contractor not covered as employee or work for hire, the rights of an original work default to the author unless the author assigns those rights.

>What is there to interpret.

Whether based on the Reid Test, the author, for purposes of the law, is to be considered an I.C. or an employee....

At the beginning of every statute is a section on defintions. There are several problems with the copyright statute. One, Work For Hire is not defined per se. Rather, it is open to interpretation. This is where the common law kicks in.

With respect to I.C. vs. Employees, it is a substance over form argument. There are a few cases where what you would consider is an I.C. scenario, was decided to be an employer/employee scenario.

It is all about statutory interpretation and making a persuasive argument.

Law is ENTIRELY about interpretation.


<<
Someday well meet, sling back a few mango/pineapple smoothies, and I'll tell you about a friend of mine who was caught in a very similar predicament. The attorney on the other side even had the gall to say: "Your Honor, Just because you say something, does not make it so." WTF is this jewel of judicial application found? Talking about about copyright issues, and having your butt on the line (because of them), are two different things. I rant too much. - But it is and interesting subject. Like real property. K. V. once noted: "Its something you can own because gravity makes you stick to it."
<<

The other attorney is technically correct. A judge at the Trial Court Level is supposed to interpret, not make law. Of course, you don't want to P.O. the judge either..

With respect to Real Property, you own something when you have title. However, that is not to say that you are the possessor. Possession and ownership are different concepts. That said, possession can lead to ownership - under the right circumstnances.

And no, it is not about possession being 9/10 of the law...< bg >...


And yes....this is a good discussion...

< JVP >