# Who owns the copyright? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 24, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865 "2011-08-24T04:25:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/41 "2011-08-24T19:10:10Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > These two sentences together really have no meaning. Under U.S. law, for something to be a work made for hire, it must be memorialized in a written agreement. Without such a written agreement, there is no work made for hire. That’s the end of it. There is no such thing as a “handshake” work-for-hire agreement. Period. Let me guess - you’re a lawyer. What I said was that there was no “work-for-hire” agreement in a legal sense. But that such an agreement existed in a non-legal sense. But to a lot of lawyers, that latter statement is meaningless - to them things can only exist in a legal sense. These lawyers are like some economists, who see everything in economic terms. Tell an economist you made a decision on a non-economic basis and he won’t understand what you mean - to him there’s no such thing as a non-economic basis. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/42 "2011-08-24T19:29:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let me guess - you’re a lawyer. > > What I said was that there was no “work-for-hire” agreement in a legal sense. But that such an agreement existed in a non-legal sense. But to a lot of lawyers, that latter statement is meaningless - to them things can only exist in a legal sense. “Work-for-hire” is a term created by the law for use by the law in order to settle questions of law and has no relevance other than with respect to the law. It has no significant non-legal meaning. It certainly has no meaning that contradicts its legal meaning. It’s like saying “I filed a habeus corpus motion in federal court, but not in a legal sense.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/43 "2011-08-24T19:31:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But its primary current meaning is spoken as opposed to written. Colloquially speaking, this may be the case. But in the law, the terms used are “written” and “oral.” When speaking in legal terms, one ought to be precise. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/44 "2011-08-24T19:49:50Z")
Thank for the input. No, we didn’t have a written contract, but we do have an oral one. They asked me to do the work, I did the work. I couldn’t sell the video because, as was pointed out, I don’t own the copyright on the performance or the songs (all originals). The band’s desire is to post excerpts of show on YouTube for promotional purposes for the original price, with the option of getting the entire show to sell on DVD for an additional amount. The venue owner can post a link to the YouTube video once the band has decided which songs best represent them. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/45 "2011-08-24T22:18:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > (Can I make a second request for you to use the native quoting function? You’re making more work for the rest of us.) What are you talking about? [Answer here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14179106#post14179106) [/aside] ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865/46 "2011-08-24T23:41:24Z")
Thanks, **Zen** , I was about to post a thread about that, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright/593865.md?page=2)