3 ms·

I though that nonsense was only something that photographers did. I do contract web dev work for clients all the time. Should I be retaining all copyright?

megous 8y ago
It makes sense, no? It's easy then to use your prior work to make you more effective, by being able to re-use parts of it in the future.
jacquesm 8y ago
That's a complex question. Most companies take care of this by requiring you to explicitly sign over the rights to the work. There are two terms that you should look into: 'work for hire' and 'automatic protection'. A good place to start is here: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html
- user5994461 8y ago
  In many jurisdictions, the work produced as a contractor or an employee belongs to the company. There is no need to have a clause for it.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-code-who-owns-it/ https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-co...
    - user5994461 8y ago
      It's poorly written, throwing legal terms around out of their context. It does not state the countries or states where it's supposed to apply. Highly recommend to find a better source that than. Even the title is click bait, the article doesn't talk about source code ownership.
tzs 8y ago
If you are in the United States, and are truly a contractor rather than an employee [1], and there is nothing in your contract that specifically says you are making a "work for hire", then you almost certainly do own the copyrights. If you author a work, copyright only goes to whoever paid you if either (1) you are an employee and work is created within the scope of your employment, or (2) you are not an employee but it is a "work for hire". For a work to be a work for hire, there are three requirements that all must be satisfied. 1. The work must be specially ordered or commissioned. 2. There must be a written contract that states it is a work for hire. 3. It must fall into one of nine categories: • a contribution to a collective work • a translation • a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • a supplementary work (e.g., foreword, illustration, editorial notes) • a compilation • an instructional text • a test • answer material for a test • an atlas A bit of Googling turns up a few articles from IP and business law firms saying that most software does not fall under any of these categories and so cannot be a work for hire [2]. On the other hand, there are at least four district court cases that have concluded that software can fall under compilations and under contributions to collective works [3] and so can be works for hire. (But remember, even if in a particular case your software does fall under one of those categories, without the contract saying in writing that it is a work for hire it isn't, and so you retain the copyright). Probably the best approach, if you want your client to own the copyright, is to include in the contract that you assign the copyright to the client. There is some sample language for a contract copyright assignment in [2]. [1] Whether you are an employee or a contractor for purposes of copyright law is determined by the common law of agency rather than by what your employment contract says. A court would look at how much control the employer has over how the work is done, where it is done, the equipment used to do the work, the scheduling, what other work you can do at the same time, and similar factors. [2] http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almost-never-works-software-development-contracts http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almos... [3] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446-4870-8710-5463bd8ea894 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446...
garmaine 8y ago
It's not because of any insidious details of the contracts. It's an unusual tidbit of copyright law that a work of the government is not copyrightable. But work done by contractors is not done by the government. It is done by a private entity that is perfectly able to hold and retain copyright. The incentives are such that the government doesn't really care whether it (or the people) have ownership of the IP rights, just that the government is free to use it. So the contractors sell the government the unrestricted right to use it, for government purposes only. The contractors often offer a smaller bid for letting them keep the copyrights, which from a direct, first-order financial perspective is a better deal for taxpayers.

megous 8y ago

It makes sense, no? It's easy then to use your prior work to make you more effective, by being able to re-use parts of it in the future.

jacquesm 8y ago

That's a complex question. Most companies take care of this by requiring you to explicitly sign over the rights to the work. There are two terms that you should look into: 'work for hire' and 'automatic protection'. A good place to start is here: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_copyright.html

user5994461 8y ago
In many jurisdictions, the work produced as a contractor or an employee belongs to the company. There is no need to have a clause for it.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-code-who-owns-it/ https://www.itcontracting.com/software-development-source-co...
  - user5994461 8y ago
    It's poorly written, throwing legal terms around out of their context. It does not state the countries or states where it's supposed to apply. Highly recommend to find a better source that than. Even the title is click bait, the article doesn't talk about source code ownership.

tzs 8y ago

If you are in the United States, and are truly a contractor rather than an employee [1], and there is nothing in your contract that specifically says you are making a "work for hire", then you almost certainly do own the copyrights. If you author a work, copyright only goes to whoever paid you if either (1) you are an employee and work is created within the scope of your employment, or (2) you are not an employee but it is a "work for hire". For a work to be a work for hire, there are three requirements that all must be satisfied. 1. The work must be specially ordered or commissioned. 2. There must be a written contract that states it is a work for hire. 3. It must fall into one of nine categories: • a contribution to a collective work • a translation • a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • a supplementary work (e.g., foreword, illustration, editorial notes) • a compilation • an instructional text • a test • answer material for a test • an atlas A bit of Googling turns up a few articles from IP and business law firms saying that most software does not fall under any of these categories and so cannot be a work for hire [2]. On the other hand, there are at least four district court cases that have concluded that software can fall under compilations and under contributions to collective works [3] and so can be works for hire. (But remember, even if in a particular case your software does fall under one of those categories, without the contract saying in writing that it is a work for hire it isn't, and so you retain the copyright). Probably the best approach, if you want your client to own the copyright, is to include in the contract that you assign the copyright to the client. There is some sample language for a contract copyright assignment in [2]. [1] Whether you are an employee or a contractor for purposes of copyright law is determined by the common law of agency rather than by what your employment contract says. A court would look at how much control the employer has over how the work is done, where it is done, the equipment used to do the work, the scheduling, what other work you can do at the same time, and similar factors. [2] http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almost-never-works-software-development-contracts http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9954/work-hire-doctrine-almos... [3] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446-4870-8710-5463bd8ea894 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446...

garmaine 8y ago

It's not because of any insidious details of the contracts. It's an unusual tidbit of copyright law that a work of the government is not copyrightable. But work done by contractors is not done by the government. It is done by a private entity that is perfectly able to hold and retain copyright. The incentives are such that the government doesn't really care whether it (or the people) have ownership of the IP rights, just that the government is free to use it. So the contractors sell the government the unrestricted right to use it, for government purposes only. The contractors often offer a smaller bid for letting them keep the copyrights, which from a direct, first-order financial perspective is a better deal for taxpayers.