httpwebwitch - 8:59 pm on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)

It sounds like you're making an outrageous assumption. But the law may actually be on your side. read:

A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. § 101)

<snip> ... On the other hand, if the work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer, the work may be considered a work for hire only if all of the following conditions are met: * the work must come within one of the nine limited categories of works listed in the definition above, namely (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas; * the work must be specially ordered or commissioned; * there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

source: [en.wikipedia.org...]

Not being an employee, and without a written contract between the parties, the work can not be considered WFH.

It's a stretch. I sincerely doubt it'd hold up to a lawyer's scrutiny. IANAL.

Putting the same argument in another context sounds silly. I paid someone to fix my car a few months ago. We didn't have a contract. Do they own my car? LOL