for-hire

Could still be true if 2000 new for-hire vehicles are being added every month, and 1000 old for-hire vehicles are removed.

Work done by a subcontractor is (in most circumstances) considered work-for-hire.

Over 2000 for-hire car services are being added to the streets every month in NYC.

Most of the people it would effect are cab drivers/drivers-for-hire and delivery trucks/vans.

In pretty much no circumstance will the copyright on military maps ever belong to the original person who made them; such things are almost always going to be for-hire works.

I'd wager that's the minority of ride-for-hire customers, though.

I think the only way that supply could present a barrier to entry is if you assume that for-hire rides are a commodity and price is the only consideration.

Generally speaking, if a third-party contractor did work on the project, that party could potentially have IP rights to its work, but not if it did so as a work-for-hire and assigned rights to whoever retained it.

And during all of that time, I've had employment contracts that said my work was for-hire, and the company owned all of the software that I wrote, even on my own computer on my own time.

Whatever you may think about the risk/benefit tradeoff, it seems clear to me that drivers in Seattle who have the choice choose to drive for Uber, Lyft, or a private for-hire service rather than put up with the traditional cab dispatcher.

If there were no work-for-hire or IP assignments, then any contractor that might have done software development or hardware design could potentially assert infringement claims if its IP is used without benefit of a license agreement to the party using it.

(For example, if I were going to enter the ride-for-hire market in NYC today, I'd put all my drivers at JFK, Laguardia, and Times Square.) Artificial barriers to entry?

Instead of making some new, complex law about AI owning copyrights, we can recycle the "work-for-hire" doctrine.

A total change of 6,205 new cars over 6 months amounts to roughly 1,000 new for-hire vehicles a month - about one half of the rate that de Blasio had said in his OpEd." This argument assumes (with no justification) that the cars have been added at a constant rate.