Craig,

Your assuming here that a contract - in order to have a work for hire term - has to use those exact words - it doesn't. Normally, those words are used because they are terms of art. You can have a contract that is completely silent on the issue - which then means you have the courts figuring out what term the parties would have intended.

Bottom line, your analysis is/was incorrect on what work for hire means. Alan is correct here.

>I read it...
>
>in Ken's case, we don't know if his contract stated "work for hire".
>
>
>>I think we're still not in sync here. Usually the author is the subcontractor, and if he/she wrote the code under a 'work for hire' contract, he/she does not own the code. The contractor who hired the sub does.
>>
>>Read this: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/15_9/federal/1607-1.html
>>
>>Alan
>>