Warren Dew wrote:
Because legal requirements imposed by the British Charities Commission prohibited the British wing of the foundation from running its own store, Dawkins says he asked Timonen to run the store through his company, Upper Branch Productions....
But Dawkins says anything Timonen created for the Foundation was "a work for hire, commissioned and paid for by plaintiffs." Dawkins says he and the Foundation own the rights to everything Timonen created for them.
My question is, if the store was being run through Upper Branch Productions, how can it have been "created for" the Dawkins Foundation, which is legally prohibited from running a store? Or is there something that's not coming through in the article here?
From wipo.int
Ownership of Copyright
2.220 The owner of copyright in a work is generally, at least in the first instance, the person who
created the work, that is to say, the author of the work.
2.221 There can be exceptions to this general principle. Such exceptions are regulated by the
national law. For example, the national law may provide that, when a work is created by an author
who is employed for the purpose of creating that work, then the employer, not the author, is the
owner of the copyright in the work.
2.222 It is to be noted, however, that the “moral rights” always belong to the author of the work,
whoever may be the owner of the copyright.
2.223 In many countries, copyright (with the exception of moral rights) may be assigned. This
means that the owner of the copyright transfers it to another person or entity, who becomes the
owner of the copyright.
2.224 In some other countries, an assignment of copyright is not legally possible. However, very
nearly the same practical effect as the effect of assignment can be achieved by licensing. Licensing
means that the owner of the copyright remains the owner but authorizes someone else to exercise
all or some of his rights subject to possible limitations. When such authorization or license extends
to the full period of copyright and when such authorization or license extends to all the rights
(except, of course, the moral rights) protected by copyright, the licensee is, vis-à-vis third parties and
for all practical purposes, in the same position as an owner of copyright.
The author, be it a person or a contractor with employees of his own, hired to create a work holds no right of copyright ownership. Josh does not own the copyright to anything he was hired, or contracted, to create - whoever hired, or contracted him, to do it does.
eta: Depending on what countries copyright laws we're operating under (but most major nations subscribe to the same copyright treaties - so it usually makes no difference).
