4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you own the code you created by default. Though you should obviously try to get a legal contract and all.

• e40 13y ago
  Especially without any agreements between the two of you. In absence of them, you own it. Your idea guy isn't that smart if he doesn't understand this.
• justinzollars 13y ago
  This is probably not true.
  • adambenayoun 13y ago
    This is actually right. One of the first thing you do when you incorporate a company is create and sign on a TAA - Technology assignment agreement. Without that agreement the technical co-founder own the code and no sane investors will put money in a company that doesn't have a TAA since the company doesn't own the code. As always - IANAL.
  • aaronz8 13y ago
    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html > When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
  • pmorici 13y ago
    If there was no written agreement in any respect then it is just one dudes word against the other. It would be hard to claim that on one hand the guy that wrote the code isn't owed anything in terms of money or equity and on the other hand the code which was his work doesn't belong to him.
  • tzs 13y ago
    Note to OP: what follows is speculation for entertainment. Get advice from a lawyer before even considering basing any actions on this. Note to everyone: OP said his agreements have been made "verbally". I'm going to assume he meant "orally", because 99% of the time that is what people actually mean when they talk about verbal legal agreements. It almost certainly is true. The only ways it would not be his code are if it were a "work made for hire" or if he has transferred the copyright to someone else. There are two ways for something to be a work made for hire. 1. It is produced by an employee within the scope of his employment, or 2. It is specially ordered or commissioned and falls into one of several categories AND the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. If all they have are oral agreements, then #2 is out. For #1, "employee" does not necessarily mean an actual employee under whatever definition your state uses for that term. It can include relationships where the person creating the work acts like an employee. A big factor in that is how the work is supervised, and who provides the equipment and facilities used in creating the work. From the OP's description, he did the work on his own. It's hard to see how he could be seen to be an employee for purposes of copyright law, and so #1 is also out. The other way he could no longer own the copyright would be if he transferred it to someone else. Copyright transfer requires a signed, written instrument. If all they have are oral agreements, then there could not have been a transfer. There's one more possibility to consider. Even thought the OP almost certainly owns the copyright on the code he has written so far, it is possible that he has licensed it to his partner. For instance, if they intended to make their code open source, and the OP included a notice stating that the code was under GPL, and gave a copy of the code and license to the partner, the partner might argue that he can continue to use that code and continue to develop it without the OP's further permission, as long as he follows the GPL.