Right off the bat Joel makes what appears to be a very serious mistake regarding work for hire. His opening logic is as follows:
- When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him.
- The same goes for your programmer employees. They own the copyright on their work.
- Therefore you need to require your programmer employees to sign an agreement to sign their work over to you.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's a gross misunderstanding of work for hire. If someone is your employee, they are doing work for hire and you own the copyright on their product. Photographers own their work because they were independent contractors and thus their work was not work for hire. I believe work for hire doesn't apply to patents, thus possibly justifying a patent agreement. But seriously, this (AFAIK) broken explanation is his opening justification?
- When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him.
- The same goes for your programmer employees. They own the copyright on their work.
- Therefore you need to require your programmer employees to sign an agreement to sign their work over to you.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's a gross misunderstanding of work for hire. If someone is your employee, they are doing work for hire and you own the copyright on their product. Photographers own their work because they were independent contractors and thus their work was not work for hire. I believe work for hire doesn't apply to patents, thus possibly justifying a patent agreement. But seriously, this (AFAIK) broken explanation is his opening justification?