Oh, great! Brian Williams reports that a peacock that escaped from the Central Park Zoo (thank Frederick Law Olmstead!) has now Tweeted that NBC is using his image without permission.

Congratulations to Mr./Ms. Karagozian for getting another mention of New Haven on air on your show. Since Mom is no longer with us to be impressed, not getting quoted has no sting. Besides, I now receive much positive reinforcement from Washington Journal where even today, while referring to other comments on their new Facebook page, host Greta flashed a shot of the page, twice, clearly headed by “Like - Chris Gray” about their coverage of Rep. Giffords’ return to the floor.

That also reminds me that over a decade ago I submitted a resume to Monster.com in a search for work and never heard anything more from them. Perhaps a few of the inquiries offering get rich quick schemes I later received were generated, maybe a few jobs out of state, nothing that really grabbed me. One day years later I did notice that they liked my resume as I submitted enough to use it in a television ad. I turned to Mom and pointed it out to her though her near 90-yeart old eyes couldn’t really confirm my vision. Neither did Monster.com when I inquired. I imagine that I agreed to the use of the resume in promos by submitting it. Who would think top copyright a resume, anyway?

Work for Hire.
How about some fact checking from a show dedicated to it!
The woman from LA has it all wrong. Work for Hire is only an issue if you are a full time employee who is provided 'all' the means of production of the created work. You are in the media and this is photojournalism 101 (actually com law 303 at Newhouse.) Freelancers and even anyone working on a long term contract which provides only a portion of their income do not create 'work for hire'. You really should tell people this, correct the mistake, because only in NY and Chicago (mostly advertising) does anyone understand this (even here it is pulling teeth). Everywhere else employers seem to believe that just because they hired you to take some pictures, or write some copy for them, then that work is their possession, that they own the copyright. NO!
Typically, if you are hired to do a job, part of the contract includes licensing and or copyright transfers as part of the contract to hire. This is negotiable, hence the whole Stock Photography market which was built on the out-takes of commercial work.

Please, educate both creators, and those that purchase creative works about this.

Thanks,
Lee

Oh, and don't go to Wikipedia, Work for Hire, for clarification unless you want my slant on it because I just 'updated' the first section to clarify this issue. Do go to Wikipedia if you want more nuance than above.

"...where relevant, your species."
A little anthropocentric, no? Surely it is or it isn't.

[species withheld]