[This is a really pointless side-thread, and if I had any self-control I'd let it drop, but...]
Will Johnson wrote:
When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of that work later.
Well, maybe, but...
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the law? It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is.
So what is "you are implicitly and voluntarily giving up your right"? That's just your interpretation, right? I don't think we'll ever know.