Why? I may or may not monetize the portrait, but i had you (or someone) do the painting because i'm not that good at painting, but it was something i wanted to do. And why should you own a copyright of me and my family when you have nothing to do with it? And you never would have done it if i hadn't paid for it.

Maybe. The view of the corporations is that each person needs to buy their own copy, period, or else you've broken the law.

But if i watched a movie with someone, the corporation doesn't get the money for that, if i loan my disc to someone they don't get money for that, and if i sold the disc to someone else the corporation doesn't get a cut of that either. And if i borrowed a disc and copied it locally, again they don't get a cut of that. And if i had a friend record a Movie onto VHS and he give me the tape, they don't get a cut of that either. It isn't so much a 'victimless crime', it's they aren't part of the equation at all, when they think they should be. If i buy a second hand Ford Pickup, Ford Motors shouldn't be banging on my door insisting on a cut. And yet somehow for digital media it's entirely different, it's this sacred godlike territory you can't infringe on at all.

The solution to this, is to make so cheap AND so available that it's easier to pay for it in person than it is to get it via other means. I might download 10 seasons of house, but if i can get 10 seasons of house for say $1-5 per season, hell i'd rather just buy i, but if each season is $80 then i'd rather download it and not give a dime (since i can wait 3 weeks/months for something to download in the background). And if i love house so much that i'd pay $1 per season (or whatever a decent price would be), i might buy several copies of 10 seasons and give them away to friends and family who i think enjoy them.

Believe it or not, Crunchyroll and Netflix WERE reducing the problem because it was very low priced and you had access to a lot.... then the prices went up, and they split it out so there's 50 streaming services, and now it's not worth it. (Actually i was iffy when they went to streaming and didn't offer DVD's anymore). No, it's too pricy, too annoying, and i can't find the seasons of things i'm interested in like Fraggle Rock.

You can only mometise if your licence covers it.
Copyright remains with the author and regards the work, not the people in it.
Doesnt matter if you paid for the labour hours or not.

Clearly you do not understand these concepts at all and I suggest you go do some learning.

Mhmm, Pretty sure this is why it's works for hire. Under your rules I would refuse to pay someone to paint my house, and then get sued that you aren't getting sufficient extra revenue for your painting work and i couldn't have anyone over because they might be getting undue access to your works.

And i doubt anyone would let you paint their house (unpaid) because you'd own the copyright or whatnot and then insisting because it's there you own a portion of the house and need to get paid for it. Hell with 'modern art' you could smear crap on the wall and call it art and claim copyright on it.

To me it's very simple. I pay for a thing, i own the thing. If that thing is effectively original, i own the original thing lock stock and barrel. You can however claim credit for it (if it's artistic, usually a signature), but you don't own any part of it anymore.

You are now being willfully ignorant. Goodbye.

No. If i pay for you to say paint my wall (let's say it's a landscape). i take a picture of it and sell it on T-shirts, you cannot own it because it is mine. I paid for it. If you wanted to sell it on T-shirts you should have painted it on your own, not got paid to do it.

I believe some places call this 'double dipping'. And i'm sure it's also why it's works for hire, to deal with these issues.

So let's say we go to something more grounded and less theoretical. Marvel comics hires Todd McFarlin to do a comic. Who has the rights to sell the Comic?

Would it be Marvel? Or Todd?

Next question. Why in the F*** would a company pay someone to draw stuff they they can't sell, or would have someone underselling something they paid to have created?

Is all this still in line with the title (and supposed content) of this thread?

Well it's not going into politics, and copyright is closely tied to the topic, so I'd say yes.

Though if we're talking actual piracy (attacking/raiding ships out at sea) then no none of them are.

But i'm sure the topic can just go away too.

heh, maybe i need glasses.. or need to have a higher text resolution; I saw 'snide insults' and 'snide comments' instead of snip :P

Sadly not mate. Apologies!

A case like this was actually heard. Professional wrestler Randy Orton has a tapestry of tattoos on his arms. WWE and 2K made the tattoos available as decorations (so you can recreate different versions of Orton, or another wrestler with the same tattoos). The tattoo artist sued stating that offering the tattoos outside their appearance directly on Orton's skin violated their copyright since the work for hire was specifically the version appearing on his skin and not a general use license for the game. They wanted royalties and got a big settlement because the case had merit.

So... The tattoo artist created something and then Ortan got it duplicated (as a book of art you can choose from)?

Or just because the Tattoo artist had done it and is claiming it, even if it didn't exist before that day?

That's not how the law works. By default, you cannot do that, and you can be sued, and you will lose, 100% of the time. If you come to some agreement to transfer copyright, then yes, you can do that. But it has to be specifically agreed to by both parties. It's not something that "just happens," with one exception (see below). Depends. Is he an employee, or an independent contractor? If the former, then Marvel does. If the latter, then he does. As a contractor, he could also choose to sell the copyright to Marvel, either permanently or for a limited time. Just so you're clear, that person you hired to paint your wall was an independent contractor. Hiring an employee puts far more responsibility on you, involving taxes, benefits, etc. Companies use independent contractors all the time, for various reasons. Obviously they would have some agreement in place to sell stuff made by someone they paid. It might be for a limited time, but typically companies only care about the next quarter, so if they figured they were getting their money's worth right now, they may not care about copyright reverting to the creator later (if that's what the agreement is).

Rrriiiggghhhttt.... So 'after i get paid, no one can ever make money on this product you own, unless i get a cut of it too'.... Nope, i don't think that's right.

I see.

All the more reason to shrink copyright to 20 years. Or with all that BS, 5 or 10 years.

It really doesn't matter what you think. That's the way it is, according to the law. You don't own the product, the person who created it does. Like I said, you can come to an agreement to transfer copyright, or you could agree to no up-front payment, and the painter makes all their money from t-shirt sales later. Except it's not BS, it's to protect creators, who get screwed over much too often, which is why copyright laws were created in the first place. Companies like Disney have warped it by extending it beyond reason, but 5 years is far too unreasonable in the other direction.

Except the painting, is in the other person's house....

So pray tell. What happens after say the painting is done, and then i don't know, gets repainted over, or the wall gets removed and the painting destroyed? Do you have to pay the original painter reparations for destruction of their work (which they were paid for to paint in the first place)? Nevermind it's NOT THEIR HOUSE! So whatever happens to said painting and house should not matter to them at all.

Possibly. But if i commissioned for something to be made (be it ghost writing, or a painting, or artwork), i expect to be owning it because i paid for it's creation. If i purchased a copy of something (like a book or reprint, dvd, etc) yes i understand i don't own the original works, but those have already been more or less sold off to the studio and publisher. (Many games from some devs were made knowing they wouldn't own the work afterwards, but otherwise the game would never have been made, so you gotta choose your evils).

Maybe my ideas of ownership and commissioning are out of this world. That's probably it.