So are they saying she was EXTORTING the money, refusing to hand over the tapes unless further payment was made??? If the project was finished in 2006 and she had been paid $100,000 already, one would think that all raw materials created for the project already belonged to the Edwards campaign - unless they have INCOMPETENT lawyers who gave Rielle a contract that did not specify that all the created materials would belong to the campaign.
This explanation does not begin to pass the smell test.
Clearly Johnny-boy wanted to funnel more money to her. $14K..... suspiciously similar to the reported $15K per month that became the standard payment for her ongoing support - was this the beginning of THAT arrangement, and then they decided they needed to get it away from the campaign and the PAC and handle it with ‘private’ contributions? That would seem to be the likely explanation - need to create political, media, and legal pressure by emphasizing the possible legal/criminal aspect of misuse of PAC or campaign funds, so that Edwards aides can be deposed under oath, documents can be subpoenaed, etc. Hope someone has more of a “memory” than all the Clintonista scum who can never remember anything......
If the NY Times is now smelling it, it's enough to gag a maggot. You're right about the work for hire. A boilerplate contract would have covered this. If it didn't, then it was intentionally written so as not to--if there even was a contract apart from something hastily cobbled together as after-the-fact ass covering.