Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Threshold · 05-26-2002, 01:17 AM

I mentioned this elsewhere already, but since you posted it specifically I felt I should directly respond.

You do *NOT* have to pay someone a single penny for something to be considered work for hire. Volunteer work in various capacities frequently results in work for hire. There is no money changing hands.

"Work for hire" (or more specifically, "work made for hire") is defined by the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.A. $ 101) as:

====================
1) a work prepared by an employee within the score of his or her employment;

or

2) a work specially ordered or commissioned fore use as a contribution to a collective work, as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compliation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
====================

A mud admin/owner could easily invoke the 2nd definition (assuming written terms were agreed to in advance- and with new laws that make a digital signature equal to a written one, it is easier than ever to have a "written instrument"). A mud admin could very possibly invoke the 1st definition as well. It would not be a terribly difficult legal argument that a builder is an employee of the mud. Bear in mind that one does not have to be *paid* to be an employee.

Above and beyond all the legal definitions, one should really keep in mind the practical realities of these situations. We are generally talking about muds that are pure hobbies. No money is involved, which generally results in things following the old maxim "possession is nine tenths of the law." Very few mud owners OR builders will ever be able to afford a lawyer for this type of conflict, and even if they could, the issues will be so muddled that the proceedings could be very unpredictible. Further, damages are so minimal that it would require someone willing to just blow their money on a lawyer on principle. That is not only rare, but usually unwise.

05-26-2002, 01:17 AM	#28
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	I mentioned this elsewhere already, but since you posted it specifically I felt I should directly respond. You do NOT have to pay someone a single penny for something to be considered work for hire. Volunteer work in various capacities frequently results in work for hire. There is no money changing hands. "Work for hire" (or more specifically, "work made for hire") is defined by the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.A. $ 101) as: ==================== 1) a work prepared by an employee within the score of his or her employment; or 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned fore use as a contribution to a collective work, as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compliation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. ==================== A mud admin/owner could easily invoke the 2nd definition (assuming written terms were agreed to in advance- and with new laws that make a digital signature equal to a written one, it is easier than ever to have a "written instrument"). A mud admin could very possibly invoke the 1st definition as well. It would not be a terribly difficult legal argument that a builder is an employee of the mud. Bear in mind that one does not have to be paid to be an employee. Above and beyond all the legal definitions, one should really keep in mind the practical realities of these situations. We are generally talking about muds that are pure hobbies. No money is involved, which generally results in things following the old maxim "possession is nine tenths of the law." Very few mud owners OR builders will ever be able to afford a lawyer for this type of conflict, and even if they could, the issues will be so muddled that the proceedings could be very unpredictible. Further, damages are so minimal that it would require someone willing to just blow their money on a lawyer on principle. That is not only rare, but usually unwise.