5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.