Michael is right. Any work created by an employee in the usual course of the employment is owned by the employer. Boy, that sounds confusing! If a creative work is made as part of someone's job, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer.
But if the creative work is made by a freelancer, that person always owns the copyright unless it is specifically assigned to the person or company who commissioned the work. The usual phrase, the one that copyright law recognizes, is that is is a "work for hire." Work for hire can only be used in cases where the creative work is specifically commissioned, and if it falls into one of the specific limited categories enumerated in the copyright act, such as part of a compilation. A good copyright lawyer can dispute the validity of a "work for hire" clause in many instances.
If the contract says instead "transfer of copyright," it's similar but not identical to "work for hire." In that case. copyright reverts to the creator (or the creator's estate) after 35 years.
It is also possible to negotiate a license to use the work for a specific purpose and a specific period of time, which may be less costly than a "work for hire" contract, and may be the simplest way to go.
I don't know if it would help, but I put some links for one of my classes at
Internet Resources: Copyright. But I am not a lawyer, and you may do well to consult one who specializes in copyright law.
Bill
------------------------------
Bill Barrett
Director
May Gallery, Webster University
Saint Louis MO
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-17-2017 09:58 AM
From: Michael Holland
Subject: Copyright of commissioned artworks
Hello again, Lindsay -
I'll be very interested to see what others with more knowledge than I have in this area might have to say. Many years ago, I was an employee of a university museum and was wondering about copyright issues. The campus attorney told me that the museum/university would own the copyrights to the artworks that I was creating because being an employee of the museum created by definition a work for hire scenario. Employees hired for the purpose of creating art should have no expectation of copyright ownership (employees of Disney who drew Ariel don't own any copyrights to The Little Mermaid). I got the impression that the bulk of her experience involving intellectual property and the university was mainly in technology transfer (pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, engineering, etc.) rather than in art or media, but I understood her reasoning.
When the artist is not an employee, but instead is acting as a freelance artist who was commissioned to create the artwork, I would expect that ownership of copyrights should be specified in the commission contract prior to the creation of the work. I'm not sure if there is a legal default answer if no copyright terms are specified in the contract.
Happy Friday,
Michael
------------------------------
Michael Holland
Principal/Owner
Michael Holland Productions
Bozeman MT
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-16-2017 11:32 PM
From: Lindsay Shen
Subject: Copyright of commissioned artworks
Hello colleagues,
For those of you who have commissioned artworks, who usually is the copyright holder? The artist, or the institution who commissioned the work? I understand that in cases of "work for hire" an institution would retain the copyright, but art does not seem to fall into the category of work for hire, as defined by the copyright office. I'd be grateful to hear anyone's experience or perspective. Thank you!
Lindsay Shen, Ph.D.
Director, Art Collections
Chapman University
1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866