Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. At least for writing gigs my wife has done, often they involve assigning all rights but not ownership to the client. This is spelled out in the contract, I imagine to avoid controversy over whether there was "work for hire" or not. On the other hand, every dev job I've taken has had me sign a thing saying that the work I do is work for hire and the employer owns the copyright. Seems fair, they're giv…
Would this artist have made any money if they had assigned all rights and not ownership to the client? No. So what's the difference?
In practice, none. I just think contract law is interesting.