>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
>>>



I find this issue of discussion to be quite interesting. Actually, I work as an employee for a company and was considering picking up an extra side job creating a program for someone. Where should I look for jobs which people want made?

Also, on the discussion at hand, I think the best thing to do to help everyone on the thread in this matter is to draft up an example contract that has been used and provided the programmer with legal rights to the code in court (as a precidence), and post it on a web site, and allow other's input to further modify the form, if need be. I think this would greatly help anyone persuing this type of job situation. Unfortunatley, it may not help the person who is in this situation now without having one, but it would have if he had something to work with in the first place.