Resume Writer asks: Who owns the copyright - me or my client? I'm a professional resume writer (among other things). Clients regularly pay me to completely overhaul their resumes. Over the years I've amassed a large collection of well-written resumes. I would like to self-publish a book on Amazon on the topic of resume writing with lots of full resume examples as well as bullet point/resume section examples so that people can more easily write their own resume. (I've found that the problem with most of the books on the market is a lack of examples). Initially I had tried to find a lawyer to help me understand how much of the content of each resume I needed to modify in order not to infringe on the copyright that I presumed my former clients’ owned. Then, reading a copyright book I learned about the idea of copyright ownership. Since I am an independent contractor (I work for myself via my website, and since I have never used a formal contract with clients (and certainly never signed a ‘work for hire’ agreement with any of my clients), then the question I have for you is - do I own the copyright to the resumes that I have written over the years? The intuitive answer seems to be ‘no’ but the legal answer seems to be ‘yes’. Have you ever dealt with this specific question before? I was not able to find anything online about it - yet it seems to be a rather important question since many people have their resumes written for them each year and probably assume that they are the ‘owner’ of their resume (since it derives from their personal life story). As far as my book goes - does this mean that (in theory) I could publish a resume I wrote for a past client (perhaps only changing their name/phone/address as a courtesy) with no legal ramifications whatsoever? Again, my intuition is ‘no’ but the legal answer seems to be ‘yes’. Of course, in practice, I would modify any resume I published significantly enough that the original client would not be identifiable. My process: I’m including a link to a folder where I’ve placed 4 files to illustrate my process: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TBlQH1yco-UDS02le58Dti_xrUzMQEX-?usp=sharing File 1 = Client’s original resume that they wrote on their own before working with me File 2 = A brainstorming document the client filled out. This served as the basis for a 1.5-hour conversation where I asked questions to learn more about their work history. File 3 = The new resume I wrote for the client (from scratch). File 4 = A modified version of the resume from File 3 - this is how I thought I might modify an actual resume for publication in the book (Changing dates, names, locations, and modifying some, but not all, bullet points). I think there is a good possibility that my understanding of the law is totally off base. This is an interesting Q&amp;A post on Avvo.com https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/are-resumes-sent-to-companies-subject-to-privacy-l-1809029.html Are resumes sent to companies subject to privacy laws? Question: I submitted a resume to a company last year. I recently &quot;googled&quot; myself and found that I was able to download that resume that I submitted to that company off of their &quot;secure&quot; server in its original form. All my private history on that resume is publicly available to anyone who knows to look for it. I feel like this is a severe breach of privacy and would like pursue legal recourse if possible. Looking to understand how and if this is possible? Answer: Unless you had an expectation of privacy in distributing your resume, hard to see how you would have a claim. Generally resumes are created to be published and shared with others. Not sure how or why they would have made it accessible on the Internet, but again without there being an expectation of privacy there is no claim. I would recommend contacting the company and asking them to remove it. Hope this helps. I am also redirecting this to the Privacy practice area as you may receive a different take from that group. I'm adding some more details here in response to some of the answers and comments: On the question of whether my work is a derivative work or not. In one sense, the resume 'derives' from a client's life story and personal experience. That said, I saw online that facts are not copyright-able and also saw that when an interview is conducted its the interviewer (me) or the memorializer of information (me) who owns the copyright. As to the actual transformation of the client's story into a resume. The resumes I write are what I have coined as story-based resumes and are quite different from the classic resume. Each is very unique. Here's an example of how the client originally presented their most recent position (in the resume they had written) and how I presented it. Client's Work Zurich North America, Schaumburg, IL Claim Specialist II January 2018- Present Handles complex commercial line claims for Property &amp; Business Income damages. Develops and maintains strong business relationships by regularly communicating with customers, brokers, and inside staff. Evaluates claim facts and plans for appropriate negotiation strategies to bring claims to resolution. Trains and mentors new adjusters. My Work At ease managing complex claim discovery process and multi-party negotiation calls with CEOs, CFOs, brokers, assessors, technical experts and legal counsel; Many variables influence coverage and judication around repair, replace, write down; A typical claim: ------- $10M new airport construction; Contractor (insured) poured concrete on a cold day → runway cracked; Investigated opposing narratives from engineer ‘use a sealant’ and airport leadership ‘replace runway’; Analyzed policy in which cracking was excluded but extreme temperature changes were not; To resolve claim, reviewed contract (contractor ←→ airport) and sought input from legal team ------- Airport owner, ‘We’re on this call to make a decision right now!’; The owner’s attempt to reframe priorities and fast-track Zurich’s due diligence procedures elicited a firm, but emphatic, response from me; A harmonious working relationship was maintained Took on 3 water damage claims at a hotel with an upset owner; Reanalyzed colleague’s prior work and assumptions on claims; To owner’s dismay, I declined his $30k concession fee claim but managed to offset that (and create goodwill) by consolidating his 3 water claims into 1 On the question of privacy. I did see an interesting paper here (but didn't yet pay to download it). I wonder if a person's narrative about their professional life is similar to that of a biography? Lives and works — biography and the law of copyright https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/abs/lives-and-works-biography-and-the-law-of-copyright/B9295A91FBF801BF3B70B4DF852BFEF2 This is also an interesting paper Protecting Privacy Through Copyright Law? Pamela Samuelson* but the cases she highlights (e.g. pictures from Julia Roberts' wedding being published) seem to be too far removed from my situation https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2435288 view here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aLDiU7wSyep3_U9G8QDr3gEhYYNkMsRh/view?usp=sharing In making their now famous argument for recognition of a legal right to privacy, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis relied surprisingly heavily on copyright norms and caselaw to support the idea thatprivacy was and should be a protectable interest.1 They observed: The common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to whatextent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others. Underour system of government, he can never be compelled to express them (except when upon the witness stand); and even if he has chosen to give them expression, he generally retains the power to fix the limits of the publicity which shall be given them. The existence of this right does not depend upon the particular method of expression adopted. It is immaterial whether it be by word or by signs, in painting, by sculpture, or in music. Neither does the existence of the right depend upon the nature or value of the thought or emotions, nor upon the excellence of the means of expression. The same protection is accorded to a casual letter or an entry in a diary and to the most valuable poem or essay, to a botch or daub and to a masterpiece. In every such case the individual is entitled to decide whether that which is his shall be given to the public.2 The right to control the dissemination of these works may be partly grounded in property rights. But Warren and Brandeis thought that this was not the entire explanation. “[W]here the value of the production is found not in the right to take the profits arising from publication, but in the peace of mind or the relief afforded by the ability to prevent any publication at all, it is difficult to regard the right as one of property, in the common acceptation of that term.”3 Suppose, for instance, a man recorded in a letter or diary entry that he did not dine with his wife on a certain day. Warren and Brandeis reasoned that “no one into whose hands those papers fall could publish them to the world, even if possession of the documents had been obtained rightfully; and the prohibition would not be confined to the publication of a copy of the letter itself, or of the diary entry; the restraint extends also to a publication of the contents. What is the thing which is protected? Surely, not the intellectual act of recording the fact that the husband did not dine with his wife, but that fact itself. It is not the intellectual product, but the domestic occurrence.”4 The article discussed numerous copyright cases in which copyright claims were used to protect the privacy interests of individuals.5 Warren and Brandeis concluded that a right to privacy should be recognized as a separate legally protected interest rather than being a nascent interest indirectly protected by copyright or other laws.
This is a common issue when a contractor is hired to write a technical document. Under united-states law, at least, the answer is clear. The contractor owns the copyright unless there is a written agreement transferring the copyright. This may or may not be a work-for-hire agreement, and there are some significant differences in the effects if it is, but an agreement in writing there must be. Otherwise the author (the contractor) retains the copyright. If you were an employee, the result would be the reverse. Even though you hold the copyright, I think you should, at a minimum, change any identifying details. There might be an invasion of privacy issue otherwise, and there surely would be an ethical issue. However, you do not hold the copyright of any original version that the client wrote. The client holds that, unless there was a written agreement giving you the copyright. If your final resume is sufficiently close to the original as to be a derivative work then you must have the client's permission before publishing it. If this is in the US, the issue of the client's copyright on the original version might be avoided via a claim of Fair Use (FU), as a comment mentions. This is a specifically US legal concept, although some other countries have a somewhat similar but narrower concept of Fair dealing. There is no automatic formula for what use will be considered a fair use -- the specific facts of the matter must always be considered. The statute lists four factors to consider, but the court may consider others as well, and caselaw says no one factor is dominant in all cases, they must be balanced The four factors as set out by 17 USC 17 are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Here as the writer would be using the whole work, factor (3) , the amount of the work used, would tilt against FU. The use is not educational or non-profit, nor transformative, so factor (1) also tilts against FU. There is probably no market for the original, which tilts factor (4) toward FU. The original is highly factual which tilts factor (2) toward FU. There is no telling where a court would come out, and the OP doesn't want to rely on a risky issue. If anyone were to relay on fair use for this sort of thing, consulting an attorney who could look at specifics would be a good idea.
On what grounds would you sue? Contract Well, I think that you would struggle to find the necessary elements (see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?) In particular, you would struggle to prove that there was intention to create legal relations on their part and possibly on yours. Are you able to identify in your "back &amp; forth" a clear, unequivocal offer and acceptance? Without knowing the details of the "back &amp; forth": I was hoping that someone at $organization might be willing to write an article explaining what you do, the history of the organization and how it works appears on the face of it to be a request for a gift; not an offer to treat. Promissory Estoppel If you don't have a contract then it is possible (IMO unlikely) that they induced you by your actions to commit resources (your time in writing) in anticipation of a reward (them publishing what you wrote). To be estopped they would have to have known that you were writing the article in the expectation that it would have your organisation's name in it, that they did not intend for that to happen and that they allowed you to invest those resources notwithstanding. If you can prove all of that then you can require them to do what they promised. The big difficulty I see in this is did you tell them that a) you were writing the article, b) it would have your name in it and c) you expected it to be published in that form. Copyright If they publish the work or a derivative work without your permission you can sue for breach of copyright. As it stands, they probably have an implied licence to publish and you would need to explicitly revoke that. Options There are two reasons to go to court: Money Principle If you are going to court for money then this is at best a risky investment and at worst a gamble: balance your risk and reward carefully. If you are going to court for a principle then I simultaneously admire your principles and think you're an idiot. Make a deal Explain that the reason that you wrote the article was a) to support their fine publication and the fantastic work it does (even if you don't) and b) to garner good publicity for your organisation. You understand and admire their strong editorial stance (especially if you don't) but the article involved a considerable amount of work and could they see their way clear to give you a significant discount (~80%) on a full page ad facing the article.
It does not matter whether the document is authentic, because it is true, by law. Under copyright law, you must have permission of the copyright holder to copy any protected work (original creative work not created as a work of the US, as an example under US law). This is true whether or not the copyright holder tells you that copying requires permission. A matter for more concern is &quot;false permission&quot;, where a person without the right to grant permission utters something that the courts would usually interpret as being &quot;permission&quot;, for example releasing a Harry Potter book under CC-0. The legal requirement is that you have actual permission, not that a prohibition was not communicated to you. It is in your interest to know whether the actual person making available a work under some license actually has the right to grant a license. But there is no way to know for certain who holds copyright. You can, however, attempt to determine that a work has been registered with the US copyright office, looking here. Works are still protected when not registered, so failing to find a copyright registration does not guarantee that the work is &quot;open access&quot;. It would tell you who the registered copyright holder is. There is no &quot;innocent infringement&quot; defense, but under §504(c)(2), your liability for statutory damages can be reduced to as little as $200, if you can prove that there were no indications that the work is protected.
If you own the copyright (because you wrote the book), you can do whatever you want with it. If someone else has the copyright, you have to get their permission to do what you propose. That could be the author, the author's estate, or some other party. It then depends on what the interest of the rights-holder is: they could say "No way!", "Sure, for a payment of $100,000", "At $1 per copy, here is how you must keep track of copies", "Okay, as long as you include this notice that prevents further re-distribution" or "Huh, I never thought of that. Sure, I grant you complete license to do whatever you want". A publisher is relevant only when the publisher requires a transfer of copyright to the publishing company, or if the rights-holder has granted them a certain type of license (e.g. an exclusive license). If the author has granted someone else an exclusive perpetual right to distribute, then they cannot also grant you a license to distribute for free. That is really the author's problem, though, since the publisher doesn't hold the copyright so can't sue you, instead the publisher would sue the author for breach of contract.
The leading case in this area is Commun. for Non-Violence (CCNV) v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 (1989).1 There are two routes to employers automatically being the first owner of copyright in a work produced by a hired party: in an employee-employer relationship, or in certain works by independent contractors if an express agreement is made. CCNV construed the definition of "work made for hire" in 17 USC 101 to split paid work into two categories: work done by "employees" and work done by "independent contractors". Copyright in "employees" are automatically owned by the employer. Copyright in work by independent contractors can also be owned by the employer if it falls under a set of specific categories of work (which course materials are certainly included in) and "parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire". The term "employee" above takes on a special meaning in this context. The court held that the test is to use common law agency principles: To determine whether a work is a "work made for hire" within the § 101 definition, a court should first apply general common law of agency principles to ascertain whether the work was prepared by an employee or an independent contractor The court listed 12 (non-exhaustive) factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a hired party is a an employee under common law agency and thus the work would be automatically considered a "work for hire": the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished the skill required the source of the instrumentalities and tools the location of the work the duration of the relationship between the parties whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work the method of payment the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party whether the hiring party is in business the provision of employee benefits the tax treatment of the hired party This is a case-by-case judgement, and courts have not made a ruling that applies to all university course materials universally. I'm sure we could all imagine arrangements that would fall squarely on the "employee" side of the test, and thus give the employer first ownership of copyright in course material just as easily as we could imagine arrangements that would fall squarely on "independent-contractor" side. There are arguments on both sides regarding whether the typical university professor or lecturer relationship would be considered an "employee" relationship for the purpose of the "work made for hire" definition (I'll come back to reference some law journal articles later). Regardless, even if particular relationship is found to be an "independent-contractor", the employer can still be the first owner of copyright in the works if "parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire" (assuming the work is one of the categories listed in the 17 USC 101 definition of "work made for hire" part (2), and course material certainly is). Last, even for independently contracted work that doesn't fall under one of the special categories in "work made for hire" (2), parties could agree to a contract requiring assignment of copyright. In this case, the employer wouldn't be the initial owner, but they would be due equitable assignment of the copyright by the author. 1. There are various reasons why Weinstein (mentioned in the question) is not relevant. Weinstein doesn't hold that the author of course material is automatically the copyright owner. Weinstein is pre-CCNV. Weinstein was a Seventh Circuit opinion; CCNV is a Supreme Court opinion. The test that was being used at the time by the Seventh Circuit (an "actual control of the work" test) was rejected by the Supreme Court in CCNV.
Probably not. It sounds like you've copied the complete work without any meaningful transformation. You've reduced the market for the original work by hosting your own copy. The fact that your purpose &quot;is to share the information&quot; doesn't really do you any good, as that is also the purpose of the original work. You're almost certainly outside fair-use territory. If you're looking for a &quot;kosher&quot; way to do this, the generally accepted practice is to link to the article and either paraphrase or excerpt the most relevant portions. That said, the fact that this piece came from a university may help you out. If it's a public university, it may be that its &quot;news&quot; articles are actually public records and not protected by copyright. For more information on how to run a fair-use analysis, see the answer here.
It is not possible to say that this is generally fair use, although sometimes it would be. A copy for personal use is still a copyright right violation on its face, and fair use does not categorically exclude non-commercial or personal use of copyrighted works. It is a highly fact specific inquiry. The likelihood of anyone discovering that you have done so and deciding to sue over it is slight, but that doesn't mean that there isn't potential copyright infringement liability. Compare this to speeding. People do it all the time, and even driving one mile per hour above the speed limit is still a traffic violation. But it is rare for less serious violations to be ticketed.
I would argue that no, there is no copyright for the restored work. Independent copyright is only possible for any original material added, as previously discussed on this site. In this case, the added work was a technical process rather than a creative process, and technical processes cannot be protected by copyright. Copyright licenses would therefore be ineffective. However, I believe one could still impose a license based on owning the copy as opposed to the copyright (contract might be a better term in this case). However, if a third party managed to obtain a copy through some other avenue, any such contract would not be binding on them and nothing could be enforced against them unlike with copyright laws. Another way a license might be imposed is through patent protections, as technical processes can be protected via patents. However, I'm not as familiar with patent law, and this doesn't appear to be the claim being made.