6 ms·

Your understanding is wrong. If you don't put an explicit licence in place then the implied licence is a matter for the courts to decide based on what a reasona

Your understanding is wrong. If you don't put an explicit licence in place then the implied licence is a matter for the courts to decide based on what a reasonable person would expect, not just what was discussed (as that's explicit licencing). If you're contracting without an explicit licence then not only are you doing it very wrong, but any implied licence would certainly include the right to derivative works. If you sold a piece of off-the-shelf software as a whole I think you could argue it wasn't intended for derivative works to be allowed but you certainly don't have the right to restrict it if you are relying on an implicit licence. If you're not handing over IP rights because you're wanting to lock your clients in to using you in future rather than trying to retain clients with quality work then you're doing them a disservice.

learnstats2 12y ago
> any implied licence would certainly include the right to derivative works I'm fairly confident that you are wrong, on this particular point, but I'm happy to be corrected. Copyright remains with the author/coder unless it is explicitly transferred (or is work-for-hire, as in an employer-employee relationship). Copyright cannot normally be implicitly transferred. Derivative works remain the property of the copyright holder. As I said, I do make this explicit and discuss it with potential clients in advance, and I recommend that to everyone. The quality of my work is excellent and I'm not concerned about that. I don't hand over IP rights for the same reasons that Disney don't hand me over IP rights when I buy a Mickey Mouse sweater. If you create, you have rights to that creation and those rights should be respected. This is a fair business practice in that it applies to everyone equally - it applies when I commission creative work from other people too. Edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license "Unauthorised use of the work would therefore infringe the creator's copyright. Nevertheless, the commissioner may have an implied license to use the commissioned work, although only for the particular purpose under which the commission was originally agreed."
- tomp 12y ago
  > Copyright remains with the author/coder unless it is explicitly transferred (or is work-for-hire, as in an employer-employee relationship). But isn't company-contractor also a work-for-hire relationship?
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Work-for-hire is a legal term (and maybe a US-specific term?) in this context so I'm not sure. Here is the official advice: https://www.gov.uk/ownership-of-copyright-works https://www.gov.uk/ownership-of-copyright-works "in settling disputes the courts have typically had to decide whether the employee was working under a ‘contract of service’ (eg as an employee) or a ‘contract for services’ (eg as a freelancer or independent contractor)." So, it seems to depend if the contractor is seen as an employee in legal terms - in that case, the contractor should expect employment rights and benefits as well.
- vgabios 12y ago
  Without a precise, concise, exhaustive contract, it risks conflict and litigation that can get real, real fast.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Obviously, I agree in principle with this, but I would write a cautionary counter-argument: If you are making agreements and signing contracts without understanding the legal default position, you are doing so from an exceptionally poor negotiating position. People who do sign contracts should equally be prepared for possible conflict and litigation, and act to mitigate this with good communication skills and an honest commitment to the agreement (and by knowing basic IP principles). Nothing is ever 100% clear upfront; no contract can account for every contingency: no contract can be exhaustive.
300bps 12y ago
You provide no sources for your claims. My consultations with my own IP attorney and this article disagree with you: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-protect-intellectual-property-rights-29913.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-protect-intellect... If an independent contractor develops software for a client for a fee and doesn't have an agreement that states otherwise then the independent contractor retains the ownership of the software. The client has an implicit license to use the software in binary form. That's it.
- asmithmd1 12y ago
  This is correct. US copyright law explicitly says copyright can not be transferred verbally. Lacking any agreement copyright stays with the creator.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  First off, we were talking about UK law, not US law. Secondly, I think you're talking about what I described as off-the-shelf software, that is software that you've developed and offer for sale to people in general. The original post was about contracted work and that's the context I was responding from. I have never heard of anyone being paid to write software specific to a business and only delivering binaries to lock the client into continuing the relationship or starting afresh.

learnstats2 12y ago

> any implied licence would certainly include the right to derivative works I'm fairly confident that you are wrong, on this particular point, but I'm happy to be corrected. Copyright remains with the author/coder unless it is explicitly transferred (or is work-for-hire, as in an employer-employee relationship). Copyright cannot normally be implicitly transferred. Derivative works remain the property of the copyright holder. As I said, I do make this explicit and discuss it with potential clients in advance, and I recommend that to everyone. The quality of my work is excellent and I'm not concerned about that. I don't hand over IP rights for the same reasons that Disney don't hand me over IP rights when I buy a Mickey Mouse sweater. If you create, you have rights to that creation and those rights should be respected. This is a fair business practice in that it applies to everyone equally - it applies when I commission creative work from other people too. Edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license "Unauthorised use of the work would therefore infringe the creator's copyright. Nevertheless, the commissioner may have an implied license to use the commissioned work, although only for the particular purpose under which the commission was originally agreed."

tomp 12y ago
> Copyright remains with the author/coder unless it is explicitly transferred (or is work-for-hire, as in an employer-employee relationship). But isn't company-contractor also a work-for-hire relationship?
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Work-for-hire is a legal term (and maybe a US-specific term?) in this context so I'm not sure. Here is the official advice: https://www.gov.uk/ownership-of-copyright-works https://www.gov.uk/ownership-of-copyright-works "in settling disputes the courts have typically had to decide whether the employee was working under a ‘contract of service’ (eg as an employee) or a ‘contract for services’ (eg as a freelancer or independent contractor)." So, it seems to depend if the contractor is seen as an employee in legal terms - in that case, the contractor should expect employment rights and benefits as well.
vgabios 12y ago
Without a precise, concise, exhaustive contract, it risks conflict and litigation that can get real, real fast.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Obviously, I agree in principle with this, but I would write a cautionary counter-argument: If you are making agreements and signing contracts without understanding the legal default position, you are doing so from an exceptionally poor negotiating position. People who do sign contracts should equally be prepared for possible conflict and litigation, and act to mitigate this with good communication skills and an honest commitment to the agreement (and by knowing basic IP principles). Nothing is ever 100% clear upfront; no contract can account for every contingency: no contract can be exhaustive.

300bps 12y ago

You provide no sources for your claims. My consultations with my own IP attorney and this article disagree with you: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-protect-intellectual-property-rights-29913.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-protect-intellect... If an independent contractor develops software for a client for a fee and doesn't have an agreement that states otherwise then the independent contractor retains the ownership of the software. The client has an implicit license to use the software in binary form. That's it.

asmithmd1 12y ago
This is correct. US copyright law explicitly says copyright can not be transferred verbally. Lacking any agreement copyright stays with the creator.
MatthewWilkes 12y ago
First off, we were talking about UK law, not US law. Secondly, I think you're talking about what I described as off-the-shelf software, that is software that you've developed and offer for sale to people in general. The original post was about contracted work and that's the context I was responding from. I have never heard of anyone being paid to write software specific to a business and only delivering binaries to lock the client into continuing the relationship or starting afresh.