Who has intellectual rights over school work ?

[WeX]

the child has not entered into a contract with the commissioning agent, i.e. the school so the work belongs to the child.

[Waldo]

Surely, the child owns the IP in his or her original works. However, the school owns the materials (paint, paper, clay etc) used in the creation of the work?

 

If the child owns the physical work (where the materials used were not the property of the child), would that mean that a graffiti artist who paints on the side of the school, now owns the school? (or wall)

[L00b]

<...>It's important to note that nothing changes as the child goes to university<...>

In light of current University enrolment contracts, that's a bit too definitive, don't you think?

 

See this UKIPO primer

 

Relevant extract:

However, some Universities and Colleges may ask that the students assign their copyright over to the establishment when enrolling. Alternatively, the establishment might extract a royalty free licence of any works created as a condition of enrolment. But in the absence of any such contract, the copyright would remain with the creator.

As a fellow "copyright specialist" (ho-hum), in my experience the first sentence/situation appears to be the norm (...still. Refer post #48 above).

[onewheeldave]

It would appear that the school does, but there are to be fair conflicting accounts

 

this is because usually the person who commissions a work would own it (and the copyright) unless otherwise specified.

 

very difficult to get a definitive answer, because the word copyright appears in virtually every bloody document!

 

No. The person who pays for the work owns it- assuming the artist/creator has agreed to it.

[PaliRichard]

I agree with gotty.

 

I'm no expert in Copyright however I have worked as a musician and this is how it works in music (or did when I worked, it may have since changed).

 

Firstly, if I create a work I automatically own the copyright, but if I record that work the studio owns the recording. What this means is the studio can't go selling it here there and everywhere (unless I have previously agreed to it doing so) without my permission, even with my permission as the creator of the work I am entitled to a percentage of the profits.

 

But crucially I am not entitled to the recording of the work to do with as I please, for all intents and purposes the actual recording is the studios.

 

Secondly if someone else commisions me to play bass on a track, even if I create the bass line, if they have 'written' the track and I have agreed to contribute to 'their' track, they own the copyright.

 

This is awkward because there have been court cases which have overturned this but that is usually when an individuals contribution has been shown to be significant to the success of the work (as with Procol Harum's 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' or Mick Ronson's contribution to David Bowie's work), in general, if you contribute you don't automatically own the copyright.

 

So to summarise being commisioned to do a work (like the school asking a child to produce a picture of a 'rabbit', or several students to produce one picture) doesn't always automatically give the artist the ownership of the work and even if they are the copyright owner it doesn't always give them the right to control the 'hard copy' of that work.

 

But that's just music, and that's from a few years ago, so I could be entirely wrong.

[L00b]

Firstly, if I create a work I automatically own the copyright, but if I record that work the studio owns the recording.

 

What this means is the studio can't go selling it here there and everywhere (unless I have previously agreed to it doing so) without my permission, even with my permission as the creator of the work I am entitled to a percentage of the profits.

 

But crucially I am not entitled to the recording of the work to do with as I please, for all intents and purposes the actual recording is the studios.

That is because several distinct copyrights are involved:

• you will own a literary copyright in the score you create,
  
• you (or another) will own a (2nd, distinct) performance copyright if you (or another) play the score, and
  
• the studio will own a (3rd, distinct) recording copyright.

Seemingly (to lay people) it looks like the "same work" overall, but that is not the case: there are different works (within the statutory meaning of the word: score, performance, recording) involved, each attracting its own copyright and -depending on what type of copyright- owned by a respective, different owner. All per CDPA'88.

 

The 'problem' situations which you outline arise when exploiting these works, very obviously because they must necessarily be exploited in combined form (therefore combining the respective copyrights of the several parties). In practice, contracts sort all that out (contractual agreements trump default provisions of the CDPA'88 as regards dealings in copyrights, within limits of contract/commercial/EU/International (Berne Convention) law of course).

[truman]

That is because several distinct copyrights are involved:

• you will own a literary copyright in the score you create,
  
• you (or another) will own a (2nd, distinct) performance copyright if you (or another) play the score, and
  
• the studio will own a (3rd, distinct) recording copyright.

Seemingly (to lay people) it looks like the "same work" overall, but that is not the case: there are different works (within the statutory meaning of the word: score, performance, recording) involved, each attracting its own copyright and -depending on what type of copyright- owned by a respective, different owner. All per CDPA'88.

 

The 'problem' situations which you outline arise when exploiting these works, very obviously because they must necessarily be exploited in combined form (therefore combining the respective copyrights of the several parties). In practice, contracts sort all that out (contractual agreements trump default provisions of the CDPA'88 as regards dealings in copyrights, within limits of contract/commercial/EU/International (Berne Convention) law of course).

 

I know this may be dragging the thread a bit off topic but...when a "covers" band plays someone else's music for reward how is the copyright owner compensated? And which one?

[L00b]

I know this may be dragging the thread a bit off topic but...when a "covers" band plays someone else's music for reward how is the copyright owner compensated (1)? And which one?(2)

(1) expectedly according to a relevant contract between the group and (2) below; and

(2) royalties are paid to whoever owns the copyrights in the original score and lyrics (this is simplified version, of course: in practice, it will depend on how long and convoluted the chain of ownership is).

 

Alternatively, a relevant collection agency may be involved (typically for 'small scale' cover, e.g. local groups in pubs).

 

The question of "how much" is pretty much academic/redundant - that's down to each and every situation/as the parties negotiate. Or is set by the collection agency (I don't deal with them, so don't know precisely).

 

The original performance and recording copyrights are not relevant, the works they respectively relate to are not being copied when performing the cover. This is because the cover is a new performance, and therefore attracts its own new performance copyright, whereby the cover band can proceed to 'sell' it itself (from which to pay royalties to (2)). Etc, etc. - round and round she goes

[truman]

(1) Expectedly according to a relevant contract between the group and (2) below; and

(2) royalties are paid to whoever owns the copyrights in the original score and lyrics (this is simplified version, of course: in practice, it will depend on how long and convoluted the chain of ownership is)

 

The original performance and recording copyrights are not relevant, the works they respectively relate to are not being copied when performing the cover. This is because the cover is a new performance, and therefore attracts its own new performance copyright, whereby the cover band can proceed to 'sell' it itself (from which to pay royalties to (2)). Etc, etc. - round and round she goes

 

Are you saying that the person holding the score/lyric copyright should recieve payment from the group? Does this ever happen..if so how?

[Cyclone]

Are you saying that the person holding the score/lyric copyright should recieve payment from the group? Does this ever happen..if so how?

 

If the group has contracted the individual to produce the score/lyric and the contract includes a license for them to use it, then they'd have no need to pay anything beyond what was agreed in the contract.

 

School work is different though in that no contract is explicitly formed to transfer rights to the school, in which case they stay with the child. (That would be my understanding of the situation). The materials meanwhile, stay within the ownership of the school as there is no contract that transfers ownership to the child. The school cannot profit from the work of art, but the child cannot simply claim it and take it home.