"Paid for your time" does not mean "work for hire" in the U.S. If someone is not an employee, then only certain types of works can be works for hire: "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." Notably, even a written contract saying "work for hire" doesn't make something a work for hire if it doesn't comply with the statute. That's why it's important to have a proper contract, typically one that says work for hire *and* grants the customer an exclusive lifetime license.
I have no idea of the merits of this case or about German law on the subject, but if the contract did expressly grant a limited license, it's likely that it wasn't contemplated as a work for hire.
For example - (Thinks)"Ah good, my spouse is picking me up at the north side of the car park at 4.30pm". [Puts phone away.]
Why do you need to get that text before the credits roll?
"Handguns" didn't exist in 1789, so if you're holding up a 1789 piece of paper, you should only get to use a 1789 gun! If you accept a gun made in 2014, then you have to accept ALL the technological features required. It's not that complicated.
Handguns existed at the time the Second Amendment was passed. They weren't nearly as good, no question, but they did exist. More importantly, though, I doubt you'd accept that kind of limitation with respect to the First Amendment, which would allow only handwriting, unamplified speech, acoustic megaphones, woodcuts, manual printing presses, and a few other, mostly one-off or impermanent, means of expression. No internet. No microphones. No audio recording and playback. No video or photographs.