techniques, to develop new photographs. As a result, I developed a richness of style. All of this benefited my clients

There has been a dramatic change in the last few years as companies in all areas of our business insist on work-forhire. Of the 15 regular clients I had in the last 16 years, I lost five because of work-for-hire-that's one third of my client base.

it is like a brush fire, I live with the foreboding that one more of my regular clients will turn to work-for-hire. It becomes harder and harder to find clients who don't demand work-for-hire.

I cannot put time, effort, and love into photos which have resale potential and then have them stuck in a file somewhere and forgotten or, just as dreadful, have the client resell my pictures to others. My authorship rights and residual income go down the drain and I don't have a thing to say about it.

Why do publishers want us to do work-for-hire? They say they want revision rights and exclusivity. They can get all the rights they want just by negotiating fairly with us.

Why do they need work-for-hire? There is an oid fable about a dog lying in a manger full of hay. An ox leans down to eat. The dog snarls and bites him. Day after day the dog lies on the hay while the ox grows thinner and thinner. "Why are you doing this?" says the ox, "You don't need the hay. You don't even eai hay!" "I don't need it," growls the dog, "but I've got it!" is that why we are fighting for our professional lives, because of a dog in a manger?

Work-for-hire makes my future in the profession bleak. The future for new photographers is hopeless. Without our pride, without any assurance of future income from our work, we are no longer craftsmen or professionals or independent business people, but day laborers. This is true for all photographers in every area of the profession, whether publishing, advertising or corporate.

It is dangerous to our culture and our economy to deny craators the right to claim authorship and the ability to survive. Work-for-hire isn't necessary. The danger won't be over until the law is changed.

Michael Heron, Photographer

Cunfired from precious page

homeless group, Community for Creative NonViolence (CCNV), and a Baltimore, Md. sculptor by the name of Jarnes Ear! Reid. Reid is no amateur sculptor, his works have apparently achieved considerable acclaim in this area. He was asked by Snyder to create a sculpture depicting the plight of the homeless for the Pageant of Peace in Washing ton. Reid and Snyder orally agreed that Reid would create the sculpture desired by CCNV, but would be paid only for $15,000 in expenses required to cast the work in a special material. It was understood that Reid himself would donate his services to CCNV for this project. The court's findings of lact indicated that ownership of the copyright in the statue was not discussed, and was not addressed in any written agreement (there was none) Reid testified, however, that Snyder had agreed that Reid would retain "full copyright rights" in the work.

Reid prepared a sketch of the statue, which consisted of a black homeless family on a grate He then selected the persons to serve as models for the statue. At Snyder's suggestion, Reid modified his plan for the sculpture by depicting the family in a reclining, rather than standing or sitting, position.

Reid and a crew of 12 paid by CCNV worked on the sculpture for 6 weeks, with CCNV members monitoring their progress. When the statue was delivered to the Pageant, it included Reid's copy right notice. Reid later obtained a copyright regis tration for the work.

After the sculpture was returned to Reid for repairs, an ownership dispute arose CCNV then filed suit against Reid claiming that it owned the copyright in the statue. The trial court held that the statue was a work-for-hire and that CONV owned the copyright therein. Relying on the "supervision and control" test employed in Aldon,

the court lound that CCNV directed enough of his (Reid's) effort to assure that, in the end, he produced what they, not he, wanted notwithstanding his creative instincts may have been in harmony with theirs." Displaying little regard for Reid's creative contribution, the court observed that Reid was engaged merely to "utili re his represen tational skills, rather than his original artistic version, to execute the sculpture]"

The Reid court reversed the presumption that Congress intended to codify in the 1976 definition for work-for-hire. That statutory presumption. which abrograted the courts' previous interpretation is that any work created or commissioned is not a work-for-hire unless the parties expressly so agree, and unless the work is one included in the categories listed in the statute in emphasizing that "Reid could have bargained with CCNV for the copyright but did not do so," the court turned the work-for-lure definition on its head. Under the court's interpretation, the artist is deprived of his copyright despite the absence of an agreement addressing copyright ownership, and despite the artist's observance of statutory requirements such as copyright notice and registration.

The Reid court's interpretation of work-for-hire violates Congressional intent and the fundamental right of creators. Corrective legislation, specifically S. 1223 introduced in the 100th Congress by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, is critically important to prevent the perpetuation of the Reid court's distorted interpretation of work-for-hire. Such leg islation is also needed to restore the right of inde pendent contractors to claim the benefits that the copyright laws were designed to assure them

Charles D. Ossola is Legislative Counsel for the Copyright Justice Coalition

BY

COPYRIGHT
AND THE
AMERICAN
DREAM

PAUL RASISTA

n our Constitution's Bicentennial year, the reintroduction of the Copyright Justice Act (S 1223) by Sen. Thad Cochran (R. Miss.) on May 19, 1987 is an important and timely effort to restore the creative spirit which fulfills the American Dream and the vision of our found ing tathers.

To realize the American Dream, an independent and innovative talent transforms a figment of has or her imagination into tangible form. With great risk, long hours of hard work and fierce competi tion, the rugged individualist earns the right to enjoy the results of those efforts.

Two hundred years ago, the framers of the Constitution recognized that for the infant nation to flourish, its creative and innovative spirit needed encouragment. After the long hours of debate which culminated in the blueprint for our government, the founding fathers also agreed.

To promote the progress of science and use ful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. US. Constitution, Art. 1, Section 8, Subsection 8 (Emphasis added).

have been a professional

writer for 18 years. I have

written magazine and news

paper stories, radio and

television copy, edited books and magoznes, and recently published my own book an organized crime. I am an associate of the Center for Investigative Repe ting and I am the Vice President of the National Writers Union.

I believe that work-for-hire is a threat to the economic survival of American writers. It effects me personally. Its spread would harm me further.

Let me give you an example. In 1978, I was contacted by a California nonprofit organization to write a publicity manual for community groups. I acceptedp low fee because it was a worthy cane and because they could not afford more. Later, the files were acquired by another organization which reprinted and distributed the booklet, and which Inter passed it on to other organizations which also reprinted and distri buted it. It is the most widely used such book in Californio On one version mỹ home was misspelled. I neve, received more money, although one group offer ed me a free membership. Because it was a work-for-hire conimct, I had no

ILLUSTRATION GITY SAM VIVIAND