Which License Should I Use?

[Paul Rubin]

Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> writes:
> >> Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
> >> works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
> >> default....
> The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the
> work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get
> ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it.

The trick was even worse than that.  The way I've seen it explained,
work for hire is supposed to apply only to certain kinds of works done
under an employer's specific direction.  For example, a company might
employ someone to write data sheets for transistors.  They are told
what to write about, when to write, what template the data sheets
should follow, etc.  That can be a work for hire.  The copyright
belongs entirely to the company and the author retains zero interest.
But something like an all-original novel cannot be a work for hire
even if the publisher employed someone to write it and paid him a
salary for doing so.  The author can sign over certain of the rights,
but retains certain other rights regardless of what any contract he's
signed might say.  In particular the author can reclaim the copyright
after 35 years.  This was an escape hatch made as copyrights got
longer and longer (they originally maxed out after 28 years).

An original music album, like a novel, couldn't be a work for hire
until they snuck in that change, as described in the Courtney Love
article.  That meant record companies could keep the records forever.
But I heard that the change has since been reversed.