> When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him.
Depends on how the two parties set up the deal.
If you want the copyright or to change the license in some way that gives you (the publisher) more rights, the agreement will spell out those details and you could up spending more (maybe a lot more). I sometimes work with professional photographers and for pre-existing work I pay for a non-exclusive license that costs less than a commissioned piece. I also use stock photography extensively which works in a similar manner.
For commissioned photography or design work I'll insist on owning the copyright and the agreement will spell out that it's not work-for-hire:
To the extent that the Provider’s Work includes any work of authorship entitled to protection under the laws of copyright, the parties acknowledge and agree that (i) the Provider’s Work has been specially ordered and commissioned by Publisher as a contribution to a collective work, a supplementary work, a translation, or such other category of work as may be eligible for treatment as a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” under the United States Copyright Act; (ii) the Provider is an independent contractor and not an employee, partner, joint author or joint venturer of Publisher; (iii) the Provider’s ’s Work shall be deemed a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” to the greatest extent permitted by law; and (iv) Publisher shall be the sole author of the Provider’s Work and the Work, and the sole owner of original materials embodying Work and the Work, and/or any works derived therefrom.
Of course, the photographer or designer can opt to reject these terms, or make additional demands upon the publisher (more money, the right to use images in their own promotional materials, etc.)
Not sure how it works with independent contractors doing programming.