You actually have the same copyright over both items.
In the programming case, you have sold your entire intellectual property rights in the work you do that day to the company you're working for, for a flat fee.
In the limerick case you describe, you've sold limited publication rights, probably with reversion clauses so you get the publication rights back again.
But perhaps you worked for a greetings card company, and created the limerick in one day working for them, as a work for hire, and again, you've sold your entire intellectual property rights for the day's wage.
It all depends on the contract under which you do the work.
regards,
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Harry, in one sense I agree and in another sense I don't. In the rest of the world of exchange of labor for money, each trade is a one of. I trade one day of programming for $320. The person/organisation that buys my one day of labor can use the results forever, in whatever manner they want, even if they post it on the web for anybody to use. I got my $320 dollars. I get no residuals, no matter if the purchaser makes $50 million dollars off of my day's labor.
However, under the copyright laws, if I work one day making a limerick, if I sell it to a publisher for a book for $320, I can expect to get royalties from it, for as long as people want to buy the book. My kids would get the royalties later, probably my grandkids would as well. If my limerick is real, real, popular, it might rack up a million dollars in sales over that time, of which I and my heirs and assigns get a cut.
I have the right to price my labor in both cases. I get the same up-front money in both cases. I have been "paid" in both cases. How come the limerick keeps paying and paying and my programming doesn't. Why is one class of labor so superior to another class of labor. Yet many people insist most strongly that to bring up this point is to attack the foundation of civilization. I understand the law involved, but I am talking about the morality involved.
|