To Share or Not to Share, That is the Question



share

Copyright is as old as printing and as new as today. As freelancers, whether writing, designing for print or the Internet, broadcasting, filming, or creating music, you should be aware of your rights of ownership of your work as well as when you actually can’t retain full ownership — the down side of selling your work for a living.

Note: You cannot copyright an idea or name, only an actual creation; and the item does not have to be published to hold a copyright. The minute you create it and even if you don’t mark it with a copyright symbol, it still is fully owned by you.

Basic copyright law as of 1976 and its various amendments, up to and including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, is a broad-based set of statutes that grants you the right to full ownership of your creation. When you own something, you have the right to rent or sell it and make an income that should lead you to create more. Ironically, the right to copy and sell your work, as  stipulated in the first copyright law signed by President George Washington in 1790, was good for a 14-year period with one renewal of an additional 14 years. It was passed to further creativity since at that time the thought, as pushed by the “Father of the Copyright” Noah Webster, was that if you own something that is valuable, you’ll prosper by it and so create more.

As we have moved deeper into the 21st century, there has been a lockup of creative materials by more and more stringent rules for usage as well as a lengthening amount of of time a work is protected and thus not open for use by others. (As of today, according to a great article in Wikipedia titled United States Copyright Law, “works created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in [Federal Code] 17 U.S.C. § 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.”)

Will there come a time when we lose the ability to innovate and create because all of the original concepts for art are owned in perpetuity by someone? Even now, there are law suits against sampling, derivative literature, and such. In such an environment as this, copyright has the opposite affect of stifling innovation and creativity.

I like to use a wonderful short story called “Melancholy Elephants” by Spider Robinson who postulates in this Hugo-award winning piece that in the future every single creative work in the world will be copyrighted and that copyright lasts forever, thus new creations or innovations in this dystopia dry up. It is a chilling and wonderful way to explain the straight jacket of standard copyright. You can read the story on Spider’s website.

This article explains how to use a new type of Open Source copyright legal marking and license to open up your work in a controlled fashion so that you and others might benefit by sharing without compromising your income.

What is a Copyright?

When you post the following statement:

Copyright © year Your Company Name. All rights reserved.

… you are stating that you own all the rights and privileges to your work, period. You are protecting yourself from anyone who tries to “make and sell copies of the work, publicly show the work, import or export the work and assign these rights to others.” Notice that you are protecting your work, but not the ideas behind the work.

The following types of work are protected by copyright.

  1. Original literary works (novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, lyrics for songs, articles in newspapers, some types of databases, but not names or titles)
  2. Original dramatic works, including works of dance or mime
  3. Original musical works
  4. Original artistic works, e.g. paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, works of architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps, logos
  5. Published editions of works, i.e. the typographical arrangement of a publication
  6. Sound recordings, which may be recordings on any medium, e.g. tape or compact disc, and may be recordings of other copyright works, e.g. musical or literary
  7. Films, including videos
  8. Broadcasts.

The moment you commit a creative endeavor to paper or web, CD or computer file, it is copyrighted. The mark shown above is a warning to your viewers that the work is protected.

Copyright law provides a limited use clause called “fair use.” This is a loophole through which free libraries, educators, universities, commentators, bloggers, critics, and journalists may quote with proper attribution, from a copyrighted work. The definition of what exactly constitutes fair use is a murky topic that is still being debated in courts.

Freelancing and Copyright — An Uncomfortable Arrangement

When Congress last amended copyright law in 1976, they added a clause that causes problems for freelance artists, writers, and designers. Basically, the law gave copyright ownership to the ”author” of a creative work as long as it was not a ”work made for hire,” in which case the copyright belonged to the organization for whom the project was executed.

Corporations such as publishers of newspapers and magazines went to court to protect their rights to withhold royalties from freelancers under an argument that the work was done “for hire” and not that the author loaned the work for publication; and these battles are still being waged.

In 1989, one of these court battles made it all the way to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of freelance artists on commission. This is a huge win since it stated that freelance artists in most instances can keep the benefits of copyright, which include licensing and reproduction rights and protection against unauthorized copying. The decision also poses practical problems for businesses that rely heavily on freelance work.

What These Rulings Mean For Freelancers

For freelance graphic designers, it is very important that the ownership status of your work is explicitly spelled out for each project step. This makes your contract with your client not only an agreement, but your legal “Bill Of Rights.”  To ensure that you have properly expressed your rights of ownership, be sure you include at least these ownership retention items:

  1. Original Art: Make sure you own the original artwork objects that were used to make the finished product you give to your client. The completed project is typically owned by the client, but the photographs, composites, Photoshop manipulated files, and so forth should be clearly stipulated as belonging to you as the creator. If your client wants all the original art that went into their commissioned piece, make sure you set a price at which you will sell them these assets.
  2. Preliminary Designs. Make sure you are clear in the contract that the designer retains ownership of all preliminary designs. This is a protection for you in case the client cancels the commission and you’ve worked hours on your designs. You can then charge a fee if the client does not return the designs in a timely fashion stipulated in the contract.
  3. Promotional Materials. Make sure to include a statement in your contract that you have the right to use what you deliver as promotional pieces or in your portfolio.

Note: There is a movement to make such contract clauses as suggested above replace copyright as the legal statement of ownership.

Check out the article on Copysense about the importance of Preemption, Contracts, Licenses, and Consumer’s Choice.

So far in our discussion of copyright and the freelancing business we’ve learned that writers or other creatives automatically retain complete ownership of their work, unless it is done as “work for hire.” Freelancers do a lot of work for hire. In our case, because the courts are still figuring out what “work for hire” encompasses, we must take extra care to spell out all of the rights we retain when setting up an agreement (contract) with our clients. Copyright seems to be too broad for Freelance use, doesn’t it?

So, what should freelancers do to ensure that they can reap future financial benefits from their work? There is a new type of copyright that has gained legal standing called the Creative Commons License. It is controversial in some radical “information should be free” circles, but extremely useful in defining ownership by allowing the giving away of rights and the retention of ownership.

Creative Commons, a legal method of opening up copyright so that remixing, additions, sampling, and other sharing and creative borrowing can take place over and above basic copyrights.

Freelancers Should Adopt the Creative Commons License as Their Copyright

Creative Commons, a non-profit organization founded in 2001 by Lawrence Lessig to address the wide divide between Public Domain and strict copyright ideas of ownership, creates a special extension of copyright that has been euphemistically called the “some rights reserved” copyright. The organization has created a fully legal mark and language that stands up in court and provides the ability to share some of the rights of ownership. Such sharing language takes copyright into the computer age, since the Internet and computer networks are basically the “Wild West” when it comes to your ability to protect your work. Creative Commons licenses were created with the help of computer scientists, cyberlaw experts, artists, and entrepreneurs and stands up under not only American jurisprudence, but International copyright courts as well.

The benefit of using the Creative Commons copyright alongside your contract to protect your ownership of your creative work is that it acknowledges that you have provided a client with part of the rights commercially while retaining other rights.

A Creative Commons license lets you stipulate how much ownership you wish to share and to whom through a simple form. The result of completing this online form, is a graphic button and accompanying HTML code that can be embedded on web pages, PDFs, music CDs, video DVDs, and other original media. The actual license is registered and stored on the Creative Commons’ servers.

There are five different clearances you can provide in your license:

  • Commercial Use: You grant permission for others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, including for commercial purposes.
  • Non-Commercial Use: You grant permission for others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work only for non-commercial purposes .
  • Allow Derivative Works: You grant permission for others to copy, distribute, display and perform the work, as well as make derivative works based on it.
  • No Derivative Works: You grant permission for others to copy, distribute and transmit only unaltered copies of the work — not derivative works based on it.
  • Share Alike: You grant permission for others to distribute derivative works only under the same copyright permissions that you have granted.

To set up your CC License, go to www.creativecommons.org and click the License block. You’ll be taken to a page with a questionnaire that helps you select the correct ownership retention levels for your project. The form is in two parts. The first part asks you to choose the type of license (you can select more than one sharing option in your license). An explanation of these rights retention and sharing levels are defined in the bullets listed above.

The next set of questions are optional, but I strongly suggest you complete them because they help identify who actually owns the work and how to contact them for clearances (or how to contact you with a request to borrow your creation with proper attribution).

  1. The owner of the material that is to be copyrighted. This is the important attribution clause that sets up the legality of the copyright. If you do not know who originated the work, you will need to do some research to come up with all of the owners of the pieces that make up the piece.
  2. How you wish to share the work. Once you state the owner of the work, you define how you will allow it to be used. There are three types of sharing you can allow either together or individually: full commercial use (this is a good selection for freelancers), permissions for modifications by one person, and/or permissions of modifications if those modified works are also shared.
  3. Who, what, where, and how. Creative Commons collects additional attribution information that identifies the name of the work, it’s author, a website address or email link for the author (if it has been posted on a website), and if the work is sharable, then provide a web address that the user can link to in their attribution. You can also stipulate a web address where you have posted instructions on how to get other clearances not stated in the basic creative commons copyright.

When you have completed the form, the Wizard generates the appropriate HTML code that you can embed into PDFs, websites, videos, music, and text.

If this were a not-for-hire article then its Creative Commons License could be set up as follows (with its options being a) for commercial use, and b) share with attribution but do not change).

Important Note: Always check with your editor about specific contract clauses that they might have with their publishers/distributors before setting up your CC license. For example, Freelance Switch has an exclusivity clause for all work published online, thus you cannot assign a Share Alike option in your copyright. On the other hand, you are permitted to re-sell the same article to a print magazine, meaning you can select the For Commercial Use option. Should you be so fortunate as to find a print outlet for your article, you should again check with this editor about their copyright rules as they might differ.

cc88x31This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

To Learn More About Copyrights and Creative Commons

PG

Rita Lewis has been a Freelance web designer and content strategist for the past 19 years and specializes in Joomla! content management systems. She has an eclectic background with an MA in cultural anthropology and a love of Arthurian Legends and Farscape. She's a wife and the mother of two teenage girls and two cats.


  1. PG Jason Drohn

    Awesome advice! I’ve always championed Creative Commons on my public work (as in not for sale!). I love their cause and I think it should be upheld. It’s too bad there aren’t more people pushing for them!

  2. PG BC Web

    Is there a clear definition on “Commercial Use” ?

    EG: If my blog sells advertising is that deemed commercial use or does the actual work have to be incorporated into a commercial product

    EG: using a flickr photo to build & sell calendars or mugs?

    Thanks

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Commercial Use in Creative Commons means that you are selling the actual article to someone, whether in print or electronic format. The example of the photo that you upload to Flickr would need a Commercial Use variable in the CC license since you are selling the photo on the calendar or mug.

      Hope that helped clarify.

  3. PG Daniel Hertlein

    GREAT ARTICLE! The best overview I’ve ever seen on this subject period. I’m going to email this to half my client list. Kudos, Rita. Keep these coming.

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Thanks! I have another article on the way about DCMA and how it affects freelancers. I hope to also write one about Fair Use and what it means.

  4. PG The Winning Proposal

    Hi

    It’s a great pity that this is such a problem. When I research on the web I am amazed at the blatant copying that is rife.

    I recently wrote a book and sent it through to what I honestly thought was a reputable online website/person only to find that parts have been used in their latest guide. Not just text, but even one of the pictures!

    Juliet

  5. PG AtiKuSDesign

    Copyright law is such a mess! Thanks very much for the pointers

  6. PG Anonymous

    Hey,

    Thanks for the awesome post!! Very informative and helpful… I just wanted to let you know that there is an error in one of you links. The link to CreativeCommons.org is broken, because you didn’t put the “http://” before the link. Just wanted to let you know.

    Thanks again,
    Surviving Teenage Boredom Webmaster

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Thanks, I’ll make that correction. I’m smacking myself on the head.

  7. PG Margy Rydzynski

    Thank you for an excellent article. I’ve passed it on to other freelance people. I’m also glad you included information about Creative Commons Licenses.

  8. PG Liz

    This is really well put together and makes a somewhat complicated matter easy to follow, thanks!

  9. PG Ed Penano

    Your information is vital! In an era where the information is vast and easily accessible, its key now more than ever to know where your rights stand and how you are protected. Arming yourself with knowledge ensures that all your hardwork is noticed and given the credit where it is due. I come out of this more enlightened and thanks alot for the article.

  10. PG Rita Lewis

    I’m a huge Open Source advocate and Creative Commons just makes sense for publishing on the web. I’ve been fascinated in the mess that Congress has made of copyright law. I have a companion article coming soon about DMCA because it impacts us all — and gives you a way to get the work removed, Juliet through something called a Title II Take Down Order where you contact the website where you found your plagiarized and they must remove the alledgedly infringing work within 10 days and inform the owners of the take down, plus give you the name, address, and email of these people. You then can pursue legal compensation and they have to prove that it was not copied. Look up DMCA Title II on Google to see how to format the letter.

    This information is critical to our profession and so difficult to figure out. I think our power must be in the contract we write with our clients where we have to demand retention of certain rights. Creative Commons is a good way to set this up.

    Thanks for the feedback.

  11. PG Dean

    The problem with Creative Commons is that there’s no legal precedent for it, especially in the USA.

    Bottom line is that copyright was created in the first place to protect artists and allow them to make a living at what they do. Creative Commons actually undermines this ability.

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Dean, I attended a seminar recently with two lawyers, a musician who uses CC share and share alike and makes much money off the resulting CD sales, as well as an Open Source specialist. Creative Commons is the only copyright alternative that does have legal standing. Lawrence Lessig who developed the “some rights reserved” copyright has tested it and it passes muster at the same level as a standard copyright because it sits on top of the standard copyright and lets you decide how and if you wish to share the rights with others so that they can legally use your work to make derivatives, unique creations based on your work, and other flattering uses. You get the attribution and will sell more even when sharing.

      There are numerous case studies on the Creative Commons site pointing to successful use.

  12. PG Lauralee

    Amazing! I am bookmarking this right now. This is a lot to digest and even harder to understand. Wow. Thanks so much for the history lesson and current problems exploration all in one.

  13. PG Dape

    Useful information there can be confusion to who owns what, this article makes it a lot clearer.

  14. PG Brian Branch

    Hi. Very nice this website and the automated e-mails too. But I find your usage of photos very distracting, they are so “royalty free” and generic that some people might think the text content has the same value…

  15. I studied art law and have been immersed in the NY art world for long enough to see how sticky an artist’s rights are. The whole derivative topic is confusing and appears to have a lot of loop holes.

    Creative Commons was only something I had known for images that can be freely used. Is this affiliated with the Cretive Commons you speak of?

    Thank you for this thoughtful article.

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Yes, Creative Commons sounds like it is the same as what you are referring to for images but it is not just to release images for free usage.

  16. PG soumynonA

    I would also like to thank you for the informative article.

    What i would like to ask though is what is the real “power” of a particular licence? Because for the time, i get the feeling that selecting a license is something like simply stating your intentions in a more formal way.

    Are there any examples of court cases where a piece of work was successfully defended by some licensing scheme like the General Public Licence or Creative Commons? (and i am talking about simple folks not backed by a foundation or non-profit organisation, etc)

    Is there a preferred line of action when you discover your work appearing elsewhere without any kind of reference to the original?

    To make this more clear, long time ago (i think it was 2002) there was a person who had created a web page with a title that was later something like a product from MS. In time, MS asked him to take it down and his response was (something along the lines of) “I can take it down but i would appreciate X amount of money that i have personally spent on creating and maintaining it”….The case was taken to court where it was claimed that this person “blackmailed” MS…..Unfortunately i do not remember any more details (maybe someone else does (?) ), but i mention it as a “random” email exchange that can catch you off guard and go totally wrong…So, how do you approach someone who is violating your copyright?

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      I currently have the sequel to this article awaiting publication. In it I talk about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and safe harbors that have lead to the ability for a person to write to a website using something formal called a Take Down Notice and the ISP has to comply or be fined an enormous amount of money. The alleged infringer can counter with a request back to you to proove the infringement–the court decides and the ISP is out of the middle. This puts teeth into copyright. It also muzzles creativity because the Take Down does not have to prove that copyright was actually infringed, just that it is suspected.

      Yes, there have been numerous law suits where Creative Commons license stood up against accusations of copyright infringement. Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation for a listing and explanation of these cases.

      The point of CC license is to serve as an adjunct of the standard copyright not to replace it. It allows you to share your work more freely in different ways that work better on the Internet (where information can be collected and posted without attribution very easily). CC can be used in court the same as copyright as the basis of a DCMA Take Down Order. The Creative Commons Website has case studies to show how this has worked for different types of CC licenses.

  17. PG Radek Jurzysta

    I love the CC license idea but… CC assumes that I’m allowing usage of i.e. my photos, by default. What about someone sees my photo with CC licence and uses it on a neo-nazi website, or any other area that i’m totally against? This pic would have my name attached to this, and I may be not even aware of this? It’s actually the only thing that drives me towards refraining from using CC license…

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      This is a terrific question. CC provides a tightly controlled license option where you state that you want to share with attribution with no changes and only with non-profits. Then, there is a section where you can add your own stipulations either by linking to a Terms Of Use statement that states where your images can and cannot be used. You can also digitally sign your images which provides you with more protection against theft.

      Sadly, I don’t think any copyright license can protect all piracy since these licenses are statements that give you legal standing in court to force the take down of your work after the fact. There is no real way to trace where your work has been posted unless someone notices it and contacts you. Then, you can invoke the DCMA Take Down Order and the website or ISP must take down your copyrighted work within 10 days.

    2. PG Radek Jurzysta

      Thanks Rita. However, I’m based in Poland, where the DMCA doesn’t have real legal impact. Although our law enforcement works pretty smooth in such occasions, and ISPs are also very cooperating once you have strong proof of your copyright. But in this case it’s not really a piracy issue – rather just “let me know if you want to use my artwork” note thing. Didn’t have time to go through all variations of CC licenses, but as soon as I find such solution it will be another point for using CC.

      Thing is, I generally have nothing against using my photos or graphics I create, mostly for free, but still all of my Flickr photos are tagged as copyrighted. I never reject any usage inquiries, as soon as person asking me, shows exactly what it’s being used for. I works the same way the other way around: I needed a clean grass photo for header of my website, asked 2 or 3 people that had such pics on Flickr – got great feedback, and all green lights.

    3. PG Rita Lewis

      Yes, you are absolutely right that the DCMA is an American law that is not connected to the Berne Agreement (International Copyright) like CC is because it sits on top of standard copyright.

      I think you take the right tactic for sharing free images with attribution. I do the same thing and as long as people communicate and are honest, everything works out fine. But, if you find an image copied from Flickr without your approval, what recourse does Polish law provide for chasing down the infringer?

    4. PG Radek Jurzysta

      If I find it on a Polish site or printed somewhere in Poland this is pretty smooth – I’m obliged to send an infrignement/take down notice + possible amount of money I’d like to receive for picture usage, to the person/company that is the publisher. If that doesn’t work, I can place an official charge against the publisher for copyright infringement. It usually takes couple of weeks, and I’ve never heard of a single case that the illegal publisher would win.

      When the site/print is abroad, then it gets trickier. But still within European Union it’s pretty the same, just takes more time. No idea what about situation when the case is *really* international :)

  18. PG Christopher Korody

    thnx Rita –

    wonderful job of distilling a very complex subject for a lay person.

    question about the CC license – work for hire is an essential test for establishing freelance status for Federal Tax purposes. One of the thing that allows an employer to 1099 a freelancer is the fact that it is work for hire.

    any thoughts on how the CC addresses this – or which boxes to check to support this?

    thnx,
    Christopher Korody

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Creative Commons is a way to allow the creator to declare how the public can use their work. Work For Hire, as I quoted on a reply above, is a technical term within Copyright Law referring to the relationship of an employee to a company and a contractor to a company whereby the creator of a work is not the ultimate owner of the copyright because they have given that right to the company.

      Here is a quote from the General Council of Creative Commons: “As regards the second issue, from a Creative Commons perspective the issue that the rights to continuing series and characters are often owned by the companies, not by creators, in the comics world reflects the fact that it has been and continues to be a reality that creators often sell the rights to their series and characters to companies when they are starting out because they are trying to make a living from their work and because they are trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. The copyright and the potential for a comics character to be the next Superman are one of the most valuable (in a monetary sense) parts of a comics series and character. While Creative Commons can’t change the reality of how people make a living, Creative Commons can give creators the legal and technological tools to open a dialogue with the world about how they want their work used, rather than just granting exclusive rights to their creations to a company in an effort to do this. That way, a creator can reach as wide an audience as possible and still retain ownership of their copyright (and, depending on their license they choose, give others the opportunity to build on their work). Alternately, a comics creator can sell some of the rights to their work to a company on condition that they use a CC license to increase the exposure of their creations.”

      If you have not signed a Work For Hire Agreement (which most Arts Associations say you should not do), you still retain the copyright and lend it to your client; then Creative Commons allows you to declare how the public is allowed to use your work. As a freelancer you are defined by the IRS as a contractor and work under a contract that dictates your relationship with your client. Always retain some part of your copyright.

      It is untrue that you need to sign a work for hire agreement to be paid via 1099. In this article, Lawrence Lessig (founder of CC) and various publishers, artists, and lawyers discuss the separation of payment from copyright: http://comixtalk.com/creative_commons_and_webcomics_by_t_campbell

      In an article from QuestionCopyright.org, “Artists Should Be Compensated For Their Work” http://questioncopyright.org/compensation, Nina Paley, a video artist touches on a European construct called “moral copyright” vs. American copyright law that lacks this idea. She makes an excellent point about Work For Hire:

      “WORK is labor exchanged for money. Employer and worker negotiate a fee, the labor is performed, and the worker is paid. Many artists are workers: they are waiters, baristas, truck drivers. They should be compensated for their work, and they are, which is why they work.

      Some artists perform a kind of skilled labor for money. This type of pre-negotiated labor is called a commission. Commissioned work is work, and artists are compensated for it, which is why artists take commissions.

      But artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation FOR THEIR ART.

      Art is a gift. An artist creates Art (not to be confused with skilled labor) on their own initiative. An artist “labors” in service of their vision, their Muse, the Art itself. The Muse alone is the Artist’s employer. It’s debatable whether the Artist can negotiate with their Muse before performing the labor — I certainly try to — but like most labor, terms are dictated by necessity. Just as economic necessity forces many workers into hard labor for low wages on their employer’s terms, so does suffering force many Artists into labor on the Muse’s terms. But unlike corporations and human employers, the Muse turns out to always have the artist’s best interests at heart. I’d much rather serve the Muse than an employer; but the Muse doesn’t negotiate a moneyed wage. Monetary compensation is not part of the deal.”

      Basically, CC deals only with those instances when YOU retain copyright.

  19. PG Abi

    Awesome article. I really appreciate people/organizations like FreelanceSwitch who take the time to break down the more confusing “business” aspects of freelancing that we creatives might not be thoroughly educated in.

    I am curious too about the whole “work for hire” situation. In my understanding of the legal definition of work for hire, it refers to work made for compilations or work commissioned/contracted by an employer. The tricky part here is whether or not a company or business that commissions a freelancer is considered their employer. This is probably where a lot of the conflict comes into play, as I’m sure that you could take a poll of all of us here and none of us would consider the people or groups we have freelanced for our “employers”. We would consider them “clients”, and therefore a lot of us insist on retaining copyright. So it really becomes a question of the type of relationship, correct? Are we not our own business, our own entities, even if it is just one person? Or does it all come down to what form they fill our when they pay us?

    When I do work for someone, my contract states that I retain copyright to the body of work, but grants the client an unlimited and unrestricted usage and distribution license for the work relative to the nature of the work (this works well for my photography because the client can print pictures ’till kingdom come and they don’t have to do it through me and for design, especially branding, because the client can utilize the design in print, on the web, whatever). I have found, for my style of business, for this to be the best way to distribute ownership and ensure usage for both parties involved.

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Exactly!

  20. PG Christopher Korody

    HI All especially Abi -

    There are a number of issues wrapped up in here – most of them were already headscratchers since long before CC appeared.

    Let me focus on one specific issue which is the relationship between you and the people who retain your services. The US Federal Government (don’t know about Poland) holds the employer responsible for withholding federal taxes (FICA and Social Security) along with differing state requirements for withholding, unemployment contributions etc.

    This costs the employers at least 20% on top of every dollar that they pay you (which is why you will see this referred to as “burden”). The fine for non compliance is substantial and begins the day that the contribution should have been made.

    There are some very specific tests (legal for criteria) that are used to determine if you are a freelancer (and thus get a 1099) or an employee (and get a W4).

    The IRS has something called the “Twenty Factor” test. The IRS website in a display of opacity says that:

    “The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if you, the person for whom the services are performed, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.”

    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

    It is an extremely complicated (though recently simplified) test. To the extent that conceivably (though unlikely) your relationship with one employer could be ruled an independent contractor relationship while another could be ruled an employee relationship. Just remember and be thankful that it is the employers problem, not yours.

    You can see just how complex this is here:

    http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/independentcontractors/f/ic20factortest.htm

    Note too that while on the surface it seems that being paid in full is better (thus deferring the taxes), it is very much in your interest to have them make this contribution for you since effectively a) they have to contribute more then you do and b) you avoid any issue about estimated quarterly filings etc

    Naturally employers love to avoid the burden if they can…

    The best single examination of the question of how copyright enters into this that I have ever come across is :

    http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html

    I am not a lawyer but I think that you could argue (if you really wanted to) that 1) most freelance writing does not fit the work for hire categories of commissioned work listed in the Copyright Act and that it is in the employers interest to leave the copyright with you (which is nothing you need to even bring up since without prior agreement this is what happens automatically) since it helps them to establish your Independent Contractor status…

    Note that work performed as an employee will most often be considered as work for hire. Meaning that is you wanted to take examples of your work when you head out on your own in theory you need to ask for permission…

    Here is the bottom line.

    Vanity and pride of authorship aside, at the end of the day you have to really ask yourself what the copyright is worth. For myself I have long taken the position that commercial writing (speeches, scripts, brochures, annual reports etc) is pretty much worthless to anyone but the client. And generally of no enduring value to anyone past the delivery date.

    If it comes up, which it rarely does unless their lawyer is involved, I prefer to agree it is work for hire – especially when an NDA (non disclosure agreement) is involved.

    In this instance, what I do try to get is the right to reference the client and to use the work in my portfolio where it does have some enduring value. This sets up a pretty nice quid pro quo and usually seals the deal.

    Photography, fiction, illustrations etc are potentially a different story.

    Sorry to ramble but this is not an easy topic.

  21. PG Radek Jurzysta

    Hey Chris,
    I have to admit that I’m quite surprised how similar it works here in Poland when it comes to paying taxes, etc. Although we have a special type of contract created by legilslators when copyrights and creation ownership issues come into play. The main condition to use such type of contract is the fact that the result of cooperation can be copyrighted. So it solves the 1099 vs W4 problem smoothly.

    Basically we have 3 types of contracts between employer and employee/freelancer:
    - Regular work contract (full time, part time, task based, substitution)
    - Assignent cotract – can be limited by time, but usually it’s for single task, when the job is done the contract is over
    - Copyrighted work contract I mentioned earlier.

    The question is: if you’re a full time employee, would you prefer regular contract, or the copyrighted work one?

  22. PG Rita Lewis

    Chris, thank you for the excellent explanation of a really convoluted topic. I want to add the actual passage from the U.S. Copyright Office:

    “If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the defini- tion and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.”

    See, it all comes down to how you write your contract. Be clear, especially if you are an artist, that you own all the original works that went into the final product. Be also clear that you also own the preliminary designs and mockups. Finally, make sure you state that the organization that commissioned the work grants you permission to display the work in your portfolio or for advertising purposes.

    These laws were written for full-time employees and contractor status was sort of wedged in there in a way that remains obtuse and based on cases brought to court.

    Here is a great template for a “Work For Hire” Agreement from CopyLaw.com: http://www.copylaw.com/forms/Workhire.html

  23. PG Rita Lewis

    A truly terrific article on how Work For Hire affects Designers is offered by the AIGA, a professional association for designers, offers pragmatic tips about how to write the contract and set your fees to cover copyright issues where the client demands ownership of all preliminary and original work that went into the final product. http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/intellectual-property-what-does-work-for-hire-mean-for-designers.

  24. PG Abi

    Rita and Chris – thanks for the replies and all the links! It’s going to take some time for me to look through them all, but I’m excited for the (hopefully) extra clarity.

    So ultimately, Work For Hire status is a totally voluntary position for a contractor/freelancer (that is to say, if you’re not an employee, in which Work For Hire is assumed). But a work can only be made such if it meets the criteria you mentioned (if is a commissioned work, if it belongs to one of the categories listed in the law, and if there is an agreement to make it so).

    I’ve found this PDF [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf] on the U.S. Copyright Office website to be helpful in my understanding of the basics of Work For Hire. It’s like the government tried to put the Work For Hire concept in layman’s terms. It leaves a bit to be desired, but the concept is there.

    My next question is, and this relates back to Chris’ post, is there any benefit (other than the employer filing taxes for you) to a freelancer to establish work as Work For Hire?

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      I like that PDF too.

      My take on “work for hire” is that if you are starting out or don’t care if you own the copyright (for example if you write software documentation for a company’s products or are a technical illustrator for someone’s product), then sign the Work For Hire agreement since it is a very easy relationship to establish with a company.

      But, if you intend to ever use the writing, art, video, etc. again or wish to allow users for marketing and relationship building purposes to remix or build on your work (such as creating fan fiction in your “world”, take samples of your music to include in their fan vids, create “Rick Rolls” with a comic strip or video, etc.), then it makes no sense to work under a Work For Hire contract.

  25. PG Jonno Cohen

    Great article Rita, one of the best I’ve seen on this topic. Bookmarked for reference, especially with all the useful links!
    As a graphic designer copyright is an issue I’ve been grappling with for a long time, in terms of what rights I should reserve and what to allow. Lately I’ve been leaning more toward a more open approach rather than a draconian lock-down on everything – Creative Commons just might be the way to go.
    I look forward to your other articles.

  26. PG Christopher Korody

    Obviously a topic of considerable interest.

    Two things.

    The burden for putting a work for hire agreement in place is on the employer (commissioner) and it has to be done before work begins. So as a freelancer mum is the word and legally the point is then moot.

    To clarify, executing a work for hire has nothing to do with getting paid as a freelancer. It is simply one thing that could be used to determine if the employer should have paid you as a freelancer (1099) or a employee. This will never come up unless the employer is audited. And any penalty is there responsibility not yours.

    Secondly, the discussion makes it pretty obvious that this issue is of a lot more importance to those in the visual and the performing arts then it is to us ink stained wretches who write copy for business.

    But it certainly gets murky quickly when you do a photo and writing assignment.

  27. PG Abi

    Chris, on that note – if you agree to a Work For Hire arrangement with a company/client/employer, does that automatically mean they should pay you via W2 as opposed to 1099?

    i.e., If all W2s are Work For Hire, are all Work For Hire’s W2s?

  28. PG Christopher Korody

    HI Abi -

    I seem to be contributing to the confusion more then bringing clarity… Sorry

    What we have here are apples and oranges.

    One has to do with whose obligation it is to pay the income taxes due to the Feds and perhaps State on the monies paid you.

    The other has to do with who owns the rights to the work. In essence who owns the right to “reproduce” the work or otherwise benefit from it. Keep in mind that all this evolved from 19th century models for sales of books and sheet music.

    So one has nothing to do with the other. Either you are in fact an independent contractor (and so get a 1099) or you are not based on the 20 Questions i referred to earlier. One thing that could enter into that is a work for hire agreement.

    If you are an employee of the corporation (unless otherwise negotiated in a contract) the corporation generally owns the copyright. Sometimes very high power guys often get a piece of the action for a copyright or even more commonly a patent. These are all rights that can be assigned.

    SO

    Yes W2 (usually) equals work for hire. But work for hire does not equal W2.

  29. PG Rita Lewis

    Chris, exactly.

    Don’t get hung up on the concept of “work for hire” because the definition means one thing for taxes — you are a contractor and have no benefits so are paid with a 1099 OR you agree to become an employee and take the benefits and receive a W2 form at the end of the year.

    Work For Hire in terms of copyright is a very strict definition of your relationship with the client/customer/commissioner of your art. If you work out an agreement whereby you turn over all of the rights to your work for a certain fee, then you cannot share the copyright — you don’t own it anymore.

    If you set up a contractor relationship where you are providing a finished work to a client, they will hold the copyright of that commissioned work, be it a written document, piece of art, music, video, etc. (and yes this is much more important to visual artists) but you can retain the copyright to all preliminary or original art as well as designs, and permission to reproduce for marketing purposes. This is not “work for hire” but a contract. In this scenario, you can further define how your work can be used by setting up a Creative Commons License. It rides on top of the copyright that you still own.

    Bottom line: don’t give away your copyright if you can help it. If you do have to give it away, set the fee for the commissioned work high enough to cover the future income from re-use or sharing.

  30. PG Abi

    Thanks Rita and Chris. I get that the two situations – apples and oranges – as Chris mentioned – are both modifiers of the relationship you have with who you work for. I just wondered if either had any bearing on the other.

    I only wondered because at one point, about eight months ago, I had a potential client that insisted on a contract that assigned all rights to everything to them. When I brought this up and explained that I don’t really work that way, they pretty much gave me an ultimatum, effectively saying that this is how real contractors work and that they legally had to have copyright. At which point I said no thanks. Just wondered if there was any validity to that claim. Apparently not. :)

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Actually, Abi, the definition of Contractor the client was speaking about makes you their employee (W2) and not a “freelancer.” They then do have the right to own the rights to what you produce. That’s why they only will hire that way. :(

      In the Washington, D.C. area there are many jobs that the Government creates that are bid on by “beltway bandits” — contracting firms who then hire people when they win the contract for the length of the contract. You work for the contracting firm onsite at the Government facility and are paid by the contracting firm, including benefits, as an employee for that length of time. Then you are out. It is a lousy life, but when there is no freelancing work (where you are not paid a salary and benefits and thus have a contractual relationship with a client and can dictate your own terms per project), it is the only work in town.

      So the people who wanted to hire you for a certain length of time or a certain project as a “contractor” was a Work For Hire situation.

  31. PG soumynonA

    Many thanks for your response, i am looking forward to the follow up article. The discussion in the comments has also been very interesting.

  32. PG Dan LaCloche

    i too love creative commons. power to the people.

  33. PG Leon Martell

    Question. If a piece of literature is in the public domain in a foreign language, when someone copyrights a new translation do they then get the copyright on the story? Thanks.

    1. PG Rita

      Leon, the original story remains in the public domain. The translation is considered, I believe, to be an entirely separate creation which is copywritable. Thus, the author of the translation or the group that authorized the translation will own the translated version only. The original version can be used again by another person. That’s what public domain is all about. I believe that the Creative Commons website has a discussion of public domain, copywrite, and sharing.

  34. PG denns

    so if i have an application that uses “Share Alike” (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) is it allowed to embed this application in a website, that i’m selling to a customer?? because i’m not selling the actual application but a website that uses it.

    1. PG Rita Lewis

      Share alike means that you can include the application with proper attribution as described in the copyright. The key is to always identify the origin of an item covered by a Creative Commons copyright and follow the instructions for its type. You should be fine in using it in a commercial site if it indicated that it can be used for commercial purposes.

  35. PG Elise

    I feel like I’m the only one that doesn’t get it :S

    Doesn’t the Full Commercial Use license allow anyone to reproduce your work for commercial use without paying you any royalties or giving credit? CC seems to be more about sharing rights than allowing you to profit from your own intellectual property. In other words: giving power to those who use creative content and not so much those who create it. Have I got it wrong?

    1. PG Elise

      Never mind, I misinterpreted the article topic as ‘sharing copyright with clients’ not the public. My bad!

Leave a Comment