I worked with the sculptor Frank Gaylord on this project. He applied and was given the copyright for his sculptural composition, models, sketches of the Korean Soldiers in DC, back when he began the project.
He even had trouble with the architects trying to take the copyright away from him, even to the point of threatening him not to pay him if he didn't give it to them. Well, he did not give up the copyright and he finally got paid.
In regard to whether it is a work for hire...I have spoken to lawyers about this with my own sculpture work.
He was paid and awarded a commission to design, create and have the sculptures fabricated in stainless steel. He didn't work for hire as the concepts and designs were originally created in his VT Studio by him and was agreed upon by the DC Committee. They agreed to "his designs" and "his style" of sculpture. Even with any modifications they were his changes and once again they agreed to his changes.
A work for hire would suggest that the artist was for example, paid by the hour, worked from someone else's studio, design or models and signed away his copyright away.
Once you create it, you own it! Unless you sign your rights away. Again they agreed to his style and workmanship.
Most importantly!!! In my opinion, if the committee didn't have him sign an agreement of noncompete, then his copyright should not be in question. I can't believe the DC commission and Carter Brown didn't see this coming. Realize every contract is different.
Certainly even with these rules in place, it is still difficult for any artist to defend such a copyright law since there are so many people that visit the sculpture daily and doing who knows what with their images. It would take substantial funds to go after every parasite out there. The copyright law is there to protect the creativity of the individual artist. Without this right anyone can steal your idea and make a profit from it. We live in the USA fortunately and they haven't yet taken this away from us.
In the case of the stamp, perhaps the judge felt there was no major financial damage due the artist, however the stamp maker should have first contacted the sculptor with his idea. He didn't see the artist's name on each of the sculptures? The artist deserves at least that much respect and recognition.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sculpt123.
Not a work for hire
I hope to clarify...
I worked with the sculptor Frank Gaylord on this project. He applied and was given the copyright for his sculptural composition, models, sketches of the Korean Soldiers in DC, back when he began the project.
He even had trouble with the architects trying to take the copyright away from him, even to the point of threatening him not to pay him if he didn't give it to them. Well, he did not give up the copyright and he finally got paid.
In regard to whether it is a work for hire...I have spoken to lawyers about this with my own sculpture work.
He was paid and awarded a commission to design, create and have the sculptures fabricated in stainless steel. He didn't work for hire as the concepts and designs were originally created in his VT Studio by him and was agreed upon by the DC Committee. They agreed to "his designs" and "his style" of sculpture. Even with any modifications they were his changes and once again they agreed to his changes.
A work for hire would suggest that the artist was for example, paid by the hour, worked from someone else's studio, design or models and signed away his copyright away.
Once you create it, you own it! Unless you sign your rights away. Again they agreed to his style and workmanship.
Most importantly!!! In my opinion, if the committee didn't have him sign an agreement of noncompete, then his copyright should not be in question. I can't believe the DC commission and Carter Brown didn't see this coming. Realize every contract is different.
Certainly even with these rules in place, it is still difficult for any artist to defend such a copyright law since there are so many people that visit the sculpture daily and doing who knows what with their images. It would take substantial funds to go after every parasite out there. The copyright law is there to protect the creativity of the individual artist. Without this right anyone can steal your idea and make a profit from it. We live in the USA fortunately and they haven't yet taken this away from us.
In the case of the stamp, perhaps the judge felt there was no major financial damage due the artist, however the stamp maker should have first contacted the sculptor with his idea. He didn't see the artist's name on each of the sculptures? The artist deserves at least that much respect and recognition.