>What you say would seem to make sense, but is not always the case.  One
>example to consider is the forms industry.  An organization contracts
>with a print shop to produce a form.  The resultant "form" belongs to
>the print shop, not the organization that paid to have it created.
>Unless ownership rights are specifically claimed by the originating
>organization, the copyright belongs to the print shop and unauthorized
>use of the form is infringement.  Printing industry standard terms and
>conditions clearly identify the ownership as belonging to the creator.

"standard terms and conditions" are typically for those who elect not to
read a contract and take exception to what is considered standard by
someone else... an example of this might be the acceptance of the value of
$1 per box on stored records, or the agreement to pay permanent removal
fees, both of which are "standard T&C" =)

>Writings and conversations I have had regarding legal and medical files
>are the same.  Even though you pay for the service, the work product
>belongs to the law firm or the medical provider.  Legally you have a
>right to a copy but they own it.  The only exception is existing
>information that you provide or is provided at your request.  Ownership
>of those materials remains vested with the originating organization.

If you're paying for the service, then I don't understand (unless there is
some "underlying legal reason") why the work product wouldn't belong to
you.  When you leave the care of a physician for another physician, YOU
have to sign the release for the medical records to be transferred to your
new physician, and similar to the situation mentioned earlier regarding the
radiographs, current law in most states requires commercial record storage
providers to attempt to contact patients of a partnership or medical group
(or a law firm) who has defaulted on a storage contract, because they have
gone out of business, etc.  They essentially have "taken control" of the
records because their client defaulted on their agreement, but they don't
"own" medical, legal or financial records (this is based largely on recent
regulations regarding these categories of records, such as HIPAA, GLBA,
etc.) and the requirements to enter into "business partner agreements".

>Here in North Dakota we have photographers who have worked for years for
>our tourism and game and fish departments.  The State claims right of
>use of their photographs (and other work product) by virtue of their
>employment.  But use by any other party is only with the individual's
>permission and/or compensation.

Again, this must be based on the contract they have signed with the
State.  They must retain some portion of the rights to the material.  I
used to shoot photographs as a stringer for a newspaper, and because I was
paid for "publication rights", I still owned the work, but I negotiated a
price per shot, based on the shot... and in a couple of cases, the paper
bought exclusive rights, which required me to sign away
ownership.  However, when I sold shots to a postcard company (when I was
REAL DESPERATE FOR MONEY), the contract clearly stated that I gave up all
rights to future use of the material to the XYZ company, who could use it
and/or resell it to others as they chose.

>Unless there is a prior claim, copyrights belong to the individual who
>creates the document, not the company they work for, not to the
>government.

Bingo!  Prior claim, or a contractual agreement that states clearly who
owns the rights to the "product", and what the product is.

Larry

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance