Does my university employer have a claim to the proceeds from an academic book I am writing? I am a research scientist with a state university in the United States. I am an at-will employee, not tenured or tenure-track. Currently I am in the process of developing an academic book in my area of expertise, which is also the area I work extensively in for my employer. The book will be developed on my own time during evenings, weekends and vacation time. Does my employer automatically have a claim to the proceeds if this book ever gets published? How can I verify? If they do have a claim, can I request a release and must I have a lawyer to do this for me? Can I represent myself? For clarification, there was no contract signed at the beginning of the employment. Rather they pointed me to general bylaws of the university governing the type of position I am in and I was asked to verify that I agree to them. After examining the bylaws, I have not seen anything remotely related to copyright etc.
Yes, but maybe no. In many state universities that I am familiar with, there are contractual guarantees that exempt regular academic staff from the &quot;we pwn all your stuff&quot; rule, which does not extend to other staff. (I had to toss back a contract for subcontracted work once because they asserted automatic ownership of copyright). It depends on your contract, entirely. Which, if it is non-existent, is a bit problematic. Their claim would be based on &quot;work for hire&quot; law, 17 USC 101, where the central question is whether it is &quot;a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment&quot;. If this is a work for hire, they have more than a right to the proceeds of the work, they own the work and can sue you for publishing without permission. Work for hire means they own the copyright, and only the copyright owner can authorize publication. You do not legally have to have an attorney to request a release, but you should have one, because if you request a release, you are admitting that this is a work for hire. Your lawyer would tell you not to admit to such a thing. Of course, if you are reasonably certain that this is a work for hire and don't intend to contend otherwise, that kind of foot-shooting is not a concern. If your lawyer delivers a formal letter to your boss, the boss will almost certainly hand it to the university attorneys, and both parties will then take the hardest line possible, in defense of the interests of their clients.
Depends if the artist is a contractor or an employee Let's say I am the person who created Spiderman, but my artist came up with the design of the costume and everything Well, it certainly looks like you didn’t create Spider-Man - the artist did. If they are your employee then you, as their employer, own the copyright. If they are a contractor, then they own the copyright which can be transferred to you under the terms of the contract or otherwise. What if the design was written in paper and then the concept artist represented the written design graphically, does that make any difference? Not really. Here the artist has created a derivative work but since they did so with your permission, that’s fine. The derivative work is a seperate work with its own copyright owned as stated above. How can you make sure you don't face this problem if you hire an artist for your work? You set out in the contract who owns the copyright.
It is not necessary for an agreement to be verbose and written by a lawyer, for it to be binding. There is some danger in having untrained people writing up agreements (they don't know the distinction between "what the law says" versus "what we had in mind"). The agreement is binding, but their interpretation of the contract language does not automatically prevail. The statement "ALL TUTORS ARE PAID 8 HOURS, unless told otherwise" is slightly problematic since it is not true (you can't pay time, you pay money for time spend). With no other statements about time and payment, and just looking at the words, this says that an employee will be paid for 8 hours work, period. Unless they say something different. That could mean "even if you work 20 hours, you only get paid for 8" (illegal under various labor laws), or it could be "even if you only work 2 hours, you get paid for 8" (the most reasonable interpretation). The interpretation "You are limited to 8 hours of work per pay period / contract" is not a reasonable interpretation: that isn't what the clause says. Such a limit could be clearly expressed ("can work up to 8 hours" is a clear way to state the limit), and since they didn't say anything like that, that is not how the courts will read the clause. They can, however, inform you otherwise, e.g. say "your minimum automatic pay is now 2 hours", or "we will only guarantee 2 hours work", and at that point that's what the number is. Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor. If you have worked more than 8 hours and they are using the contract language to argue that you won't be paid for the overage, that is not at all likely to hold up in court. Under terms of the contract (interpreted as stating a minimum guarantee of hours), they can inform you that your new minimum is 0 hours. Also, unless there is some kind of tenure clause, they can terminate the contract at will, and maybe they'll hire you under a different contract. What the terms of employment were for you in the past does not matter, what matters is what the current terms are. If you did not pay attention to the fact that they changed the terms of the agreement as of this quarter, that is not their problem. If they decided to change to "actual hours worked" after the current contract was formed, and they informed you of that fact later, then thereafter that is what the agreement is. Until you are notified of that change, the guaranteed minimum is what it says in the contract. In case their argument is "The university sets this policy, the department made a mistake in not informing you", the university has to take responsibility for the errors of their inferiors.
It should contain one of the following two clauses: A clause that explicitly lists all of the side projects you are working on at the point of employment, that will not be transferred to the employer's ownership under Section 11 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 (&quot;the Act&quot;) which states (1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions. (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary. (3) This section does not apply to Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (see sections 163 and 165) or to copyright which subsists by virtue of section 168 (copyright of certain international organisations). This would mean that your existing side projects are protected, but any future side projects would transfer to your employer under S11(2). This might be fine if you don't intend on doing any more side projects during your employment and simply want to protect your existing work. A clause that explicitly rejects S11(2) of the Act in relation to work undertaken outside of your employment and not on company resources, that is specifically defined as &quot;side projects&quot; (including a non-exhaustive list of examples) and the rebuttable presumption that any such work is outside S11(2) unless proven to the civil standard in a court of law. This provides balance to both sides: the employee is free to pursue their side projects outside of work, but in the event that they work on them in company time and on company resources (e.g. a laptop) the employer is free to rebut that presumption in court and have the work transferred to them. Generally, the second clause seems to be what most employees would want in a contract to protect their side projects. Whether it can successfully be inserted depends on the negotiation between both sides. Most reasonable employers would not refuse it. The leading case on the matter of S11(2) is Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1770 (02 December 2021) which future courts of first instance are presently bound to follow, unless the Supreme Court issues a different decision. What does &quot;in the course of employment&quot; mean? Per Penhallurick mentioned above, &quot;in the course of employment&quot; is generally held to mean doing things that you are paid for as part of your employment. For example, if you are a baker and you write a novel in your free time, it is clear that has nothing to do with your employment: you are not being paid by the bakery to write novels. However, if you were to write a baking cookbook that incorporated recipes that you developed at the bakery, that could be held to be done &quot;in the course of employment&quot; because the bakery could argue that you are paid to develop new recipes for them. The development of side projects in relation to software development is fraught with peril. A lot of employers will try and advance the argument that, although you did not develop the work using company resources and time, your work is still &quot;connected&quot; to the area they operate in. Well known examples of this include Google asserting ownership of software development side projects that, on the surface of it, aren't done on company time and resources and don't appear to have been done &quot;in the course of employment&quot; as you are not being paid specifically to work on, e.g. game development when you are employed as a website backend engineer. If the employer can present enough evidence that what you are/were working on is &quot;connected&quot; to their business in some fashion, that is (at present, in England and Wales) sufficient for ownership to transfer to them under S11(2) even if the work wasn't done in company time and/or using company resources. An example of a clause that seeks to protect side projects Both Parties agree that Section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (&quot;the Act&quot;) does not apply to any and all Side Projects started prior to the commencement of employment. Both Parties also agree that S11(2) of the Act does not apply to any and all Side Projects started after the commencement of employment, specifically where said Side Projects are unrelated to the Employer's business of area of business. For the avoidance of doubt, &quot;unrelated&quot; has the ordinary meaning that a reasonable person would assign to it. For example, since the Employer operates in area of business, a Side Project regarding the development of an online video game is clearly unrelated to the Employer's business. This ex post presumption is rebuttable on the provision of clear and compelling evidence presented in a competent and validly constituted court of law in England and Wales that the Side Project was developed on company time and/or using company resources (e.g. a laptop) or that it validly infringes upon a business domain the Employer operates in. Both Parties agree that it will not be sufficient to adduce that the Employer &quot;could&quot; seek to operate in the Side Project's domain. For ownership to transfer under S11(2) of the Act, the Employer must demonstrate that they operated in that domain prior to the creation of the Side Project or that the Side Project has taken advantage of company resources that were not legitimately available outside of the company. For example, confidential company know-how that is specific to the Employer and not an industry standard or widely known thing. For the avoidance of doubt, use of open-source software (used in compliance with the licence and regardless of whether that software was created, released, or maintained by the Employer or someone else) does not constitute taking advantage of company resources. The Employer agrees to pay the Employee a sum of special damages assessed and awarded appropriately by a court of law in England and Wales for any attempt to subvert this clause or sue the Employee for a Side Project contrary to this clause. In the alternative, at the Employee's absolute discretion, a permanent injunction enforcing this clause may be awarded against the Employer.
The situation in Texas is unclear. It is worth mentioning Texas as a state where the law may require statutory authorization in order to copyright state documents. Although the statute does not explicitly state such as a requirement, it can be inferred from an attorney general opinion. At a bare minimum, the Department of Health, the State Preservation Board, the Water Development Board, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and county governments all have statutory authority to hold copyrights. In your specific case, there's an additional complication. Something is only a work of the State of Texas if one of the following is true: 1) it was created by a government employee as part of their job duties, or 2) it was a work for hire. It's quite likely that neither of the above is true for a student newspaper, rendering the question of Texas-owned copyrights irrelevant.
This depends on the agreement between the person commissioning the work and the ghostwriter; but it is entirely possible that the ghostwriter would have no claim of copyright if it is a &quot;work for hire&quot;. This circular (PDF) from the US Copyright Office lays out the possibilities. Under the US Copyright Act, a work may be considered a &quot;work for hire&quot; if it is: a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. If (in the second case) the commissioner and the ghostwriter sign a written contract saying that the work is a &quot;work for hire&quot; (see p. 3 of the PDF), then the commissioner gets the copyright, not the ghostwriter: If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or the party that specially ordered or commissioned that work is the author of that work. If a work is made for hire, the employer or the party that specially ordered or commissioned that work is the initial owner of the copyright in the work unless the employer or the commissioning party has signed a written agreement to the contrary with the work’s creator. However, it is also possible for ghostwriters to negotiate some rights to their own work in the contract process. This FAQ describes one possibility: Question: How can I bargain for a better ghostwriter agreement? Answer: If you are commissioned to create a work, and you don’t feel comfortable signing a ghostwriter for hire contract (perhaps you want to use the characters you create for another project, etc), then you can negotiate to grant less extensive rights and sign a “freelance writer for hire” agreement instead. Limit the amount of time the Client owns exclusive rights, whereby you can initiate a termination of transfer. If this doesn’t fly, bargain for more money. You may also propose that if the Client decides to abandon the project, then the copyright can revert to you.
When you own something, you get to decide what you do with it There is no obligation to make a copyrighted work available and the fact that it isn’t is not a defence to a copyright infringement. Brenda Books is entitled to either damages or an account of profits. Arguably, they have suffered no damage, so Alan’s profits are the better target. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, statutory damages (a set dollar amount for each infringement) is available even if there are no damages or profits.
I'm pretty sure in France you have moral rights and copyrights. I am writing from New Zealand, but we have some similar intellectual property laws due to being member countries of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. We are also both member countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO has the TRIPS agreement which relates to IP). So my answer may or may not be right &ndash; check what it says in France's copyright acts: you should be able to search for terms like first owner, and moral rights, films/videos, etc. The school isn't your employer, and so the basic rule is that you as the author are automatically the first owner. Since you're not really at school to create anything or research for the school, I don't think the court would enforce a blanket term that you had to agree to that the school owns intellectual property in what you create. You probably own the copyright. You also have moral rights in what you have created, which means even if the school does own the copyright in your work, you can request they attribute it to you if they show it in public (online). Not all works have moral rights. However, in NZ if you create a film/video you do have moral rights in it.