Hi--

>Difference is this David:
>
>1) You are sent by Nat. Geo. to shoot the Amoeba and a contract
> to do so is issued. The pix => Nat. Geo.
>
>2) You go out and shoot the Amoeba, Nat. Geo. then is contacted and
> you sell the shots.
>
>Case 1) is work for hire -- clear and simple, weddings fall in this
>category usually.
>
>Case 2) is stock sales -- no gaurantee of a sale, no direction given.
>
>Like I said the gray area between is what attorneys live off.... :-)
[larkinsg@solix.fiu.edu]

Sorry - I don't think this is correct, at least as stated...
In case number one, without a written contract transfering
copyright, the photographer retains the copyright (though
NG would probably demand that contract [;-] - but that is not
usually the case, and most of the time most photographers
with most clients would refuse to sign such a contract,
unless paid considerable extra for the loss of ownership.
(One sells "one-time rights" when hired for temporary contract
work, and retain multiple-use rights after the first use.)
Merely agreeing to work for someone, or actually doing it,
does not constitute "work for hire" - the type of employment
does (the difference between contract work, and regular
employment [the latter is "work for hire", the former is not]).
The confusion may lie in the term "work for hire", which is
specific to regular, "paychecked" employment - not to irregular
contract work. Read the "Revised Copyright Law of 1976" (or
whatever the year is) - and look at the copyright symbols that
appear with "hired" photographers work (can go both ways,
depending on contract - but the existence of any copyright
retained by the photographer for non-stock photography should
support what I said). Basically (supported by reading the law,
experiencing its application locally, reading about its
application, and from what people have said [including
lawyers... {and a lawer "lost" to me in a local case...}]),
as I said in the post, by US copyright law, the photos belong to
the photographer (regardless of *any* other circumstance other than
a *written* contract assigning ownership to someone else, or being
a regular [as in, "steady paycheck"] employee [on the job at the
time the photo was made]). Who bought the film, supplied the camera,
provided the airplane, etc. is not relevant - the maker of the
photograph owns the rights to the photo, with the above limited
exceptions. I think the bulk of commercial work done now is
done with the (well-founded) assumption that what I said is how
things are - if not, we are in for a MASSIVE reorganization! ;-)
Perhaps the confusion arrises over the change in the law about
1976... (it provides considerably greater protection for work
than the earlier law did).
David Ruether