NO, I am saying no such thing. I gave an example. That is all. Some home owners may be the architect who designed it, maybe a few are both architect and building manager, possibly a very few are architect, building manager, and labourer as well a electrician, plumber carpenter and every other trade needed to construct the building but that is not the point. The majority of home owners are none of those things. And the point of the example is that having an address is not a claim to creation of the building at the address. Let's not play games with words. The meaning of my post was sufficiently clear so there's no value in going down this blind alley.
Certainly saying "I live at 999 Letsbe Avenue" is generally not taken to be a statement or even a loose implication that I had anything to do with the construction of the building. Chances are I've had some input into the color scheme and maybe the design of the kitchen or bathroom, and perhaps added or removed a partition. Maybe I've been involved in construction or reconstruction of all or some of the property but even there I might talk to friends about "when I extended the house" without creating an implication that I did the work myself, merely that I was the owner of the house when it was extended, that the extension was done to my specifications (which in turn may have involved an architect who is unlikely to get a mention unless they designed something spectacular) and that I funded the work (which may have involved an as-yet-unrepaid bank loan that may not get a mention). I suspect most people would regard the phrases "we extended our house" and "we had our house extended" to have the same meaning even though the former could be taken to imply that we did the work ourselves and the latter implies someone else actually doing the work.
In the same way "Great Expectations by Charles Dickens" could be taken to mean that Mr Dickens sat down with a pen and paper and wrote every word of it, or that he commissioned someone else to sit down with a pen and paper and come up with a book to his outline, or that he gave someone else freedom to write a story and paid for their time.
No, the name on the front usually means author, if somebody inspired the work then that will likely be stated in the preface or on the back cover in the publisher's notes there. Once more I say please let's not play games with words. If you wanted to know why claiming creation of intellectual property because you bought it is not moral then the answer is clear; it is not moral to do so because all the buyer did is pay for it. The work is someone else's because they created it and the claim of the owner to be creator when he did not create the work is a lie. It is obvious that telling lies is immoral.
But are you claiming creation by putting your name on the front cover of the book? If you commissioned someone else to create a work then the work isn't theirs, it is yours, because they created it as a work for hire. When I worked in a creative capacity my employer paid me a monthly salary in exchange for the work I did. The work I did on their dime belonged to them, not to me. Now when I work on a freelance basis one matter that has to be discussed and agreed before starting a project is ownership of the finished work - the fact I do the work doesn't necessarily mean I own it because the person paying me may have a valid claim to it.
I believe that Walt Disney was long dead by the time the little mermaid was made, the animated film was made (paid for and using the employees of) the Disney corporation.
Interesting, the difference between a human and a corporation with a similar name, where one can survive the death of the other.
