While this is mostly true for programming, it can become a problem for music or writing as well. For example, I could write songs while working as a singer for an organization. Under some conditions, that organization could then claim the songs I have writtne as their own. Same thing with writings. In fact, many standard employment contracts reinforce that fact by claiming everything you write, including personal letters to grandma. No, this is specifically not true. On October 12, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5107, amending the statutory definition of works made for hire as made by the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPCORA). IPCORA had inserted the words "as a sound recording" into the second paragraph of the definition of "work made for hire" in Section 101 of Title 17. For a year, the statutory definition of "work made for hire" included sound recordings... but that change was quickly repealed. The repeal sought to preserve termination rights of recording artists. By restoring the definition to it's original status, the Copyright Act's present form preserves an author's right to terminate a grant of right after 35 years. Granted, you're absolutely correct about the interpretation of Chapter 1, Section 201... I stand corrected on it with regard to full-time employees, such as yourself, and do not have any immediate answer without further consideration as to how I think this definition ought to be amended. Should it be? Most certainly I think there needs to be better clarification. However, recording artists are not employees of record companies, and as such, the section of Title 17's definition of "work for hire" which applies to your line of work does not apply to recording artists. What does apply in their case is the contractual basis of "work for hire"... wherein the particulars of what is considered "for hire" must be outlined in the recording contract.