work-for-hire

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

Nice try, but if the photographer is only getting paid when their work is used, don't they have themselves to blame, for refusing to work on a work-for-hire basis?

You probably give up the IP in this case, as it's work-for-hire.

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.

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.

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

I don't have a problem with companies that have a work-for-hire clause, but I do get a little jumpy around ones that have an "anything you do, even at home, still belongs to us" clause.

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

I don't have a problem with companies that have a work-for-hire clause, but I do get a little jumpy around ones that have an "anything you do, even at home, still belongs to us" clause.