[nefarious]

just looking on some advice on how to handle a client that hsa now become a tyrant.

holy typos in the topic... ooops

[RandyO]

I copyright my survey plans

all you have to do to copyright material is put a "c" inside of a circle and the year like this (c)2006 and you have a copy right

you can sent the stuff somewhere to have the copyright registered, but it doesn't make it any more copyrighted

the (c)date puts people on notice the material is copyrighted, that's all you have to do

I copyright my plans for liability purposes, I don't care if they copy my plans, but if they do, they have violated copyright laws and insures that I have no liability in their work

I put my clients on notice that I copyright my work, which means that I own the work product, even though they paid for it to be done, it allows me to sell the information to anybody I want without their permission

[nefarious]

thats not entirly true about just putting the ©
as soon as i make anything, take a picture etc etc i am the owner of the copyright unless its done as an employee, work for hire or i sign something transfering the rights.

[nefarious]

but your the last part of your reply is more on point to my cause

I put my clients on notice that I copyright my work, which means that I own the work product, even though they paid for it to be done, it allows me to sell the information to anybody I want without their permission

i dont think this client realizes i own his site or all the 500+ images on it.. and he started some shit with me...

never signed any contract never was an employee

[Stoneman]

Randy's right in regards to hardcopy files/doc's (whatever). In fact, all you hafta do is put 'this material is copyrights of' and the date on it and you're good...

As far as photos, the person taking the photos 'owns' the rights to those. But it's pretty common that photog's relinquish those rights (or share 'em) with the subject/company (whatever)...

It's MY understanding that websites are the property of the website owner. The person that designs the website doesn't have any ownership rights. That's my understanding anyway...

Copyright laws are actually pretty gray. There's a lot of 'fair use' and 'common practice' clauses & situations that rely more on personal judgement...

I know none of this helps...

[nefarious]

actually all a person has unless otherwised signed over is a right to use the site

You would want to acquire all rights in the site, not merely the rights to use it as your site. As a result, if you have no written, valid agreement conveying to you all these rights, you may end up with at best merely a license to use your own site.

However, please note that this is not unfair to the designer, as the designer can build into his or her fee what he or she feels is appropriate for a total "buy out". Thus both sides can win.

[nefarious]

so basically i am going to let them know that all licences are up, for all 500 images, the site database and all the web apps i own the copyright to.... then im gonna sell the site to with full rights to the largest competitor and let them duke it out.

[Stoneman]

I'd say I'm confused then...

Again, that's MY understanding. Mebbe I'm not reading you right. As the 'owner' of the site, he contracted/hired you/your company to design his site? If THAT'S the case, I thought the 'owner' held the copyright to it and the material...

[Honclfibr]

If I understand correctly, you own the copyright to the material on their website in the absence of any written contract stating otherwise. The copyright is retained by the creator unless the work is specifically commissioned.

OTOH, I believe that by creating the website for them and using your copyrighted material you have implied license to use your copyrighted material for those purposes. To change that implied license would require consent of both parties. So I don't believe you can just tell them "I created this website for you in exchange for money, but I hold the copyright to everything on it and I've decided you can't use it anymore". You've given them implicit license to use that material on their website as part of the oral contract which involved you being paid for those services.

But I am not a lawyer, just another consultant, and if I am mistaken about any of the above it would be good to know...

[nefarious]

ah but whos to say how long the licence was for? also me owning the copyright also implies that they can not change the site with out my permission.

when i do photos for companies that have their shit together, it is written and signed that the use of the photos is for one year from the date of purchase, i also offer them a buy out price and limit use by image size and publication size and distrobution.

[nefarious]

Im sure the end user thinks he bought a site.. but in the end with out a contract he just hasnt..

this was a friend of the family all word of mouth you scratch my back ill scratch yours...

well it should get intresting at least

[Honclfibr]

Originally posted by nefarious
when i do photos for companies that have their shit together, it is written and signed that the use of the photos is for one year from the date of purchase, i also offer them a buy out price and limit use by image size and publication size and distrobution.

Of course, you can specify license terms at the outset, but any time you receive compensation in exchange for something there is an implied license granted. And you can't change the terms of that implied license unilaterally.

For example, if I write a program for a client, I retain the copyright to that source code and they have no rights to modify and distribute it. However, they have an implied right to fair use of the work that they paid me for, in this case they have the right to use and (I believe) distribute the program that was created from the source code. I could have restricted the use of that program, but I can't retroactively appply a restrictive license to the company who paid me to write the program without their consent after I have already implied license for them to use the program.

Much in the same way, if I buy a CD from walmart, the artist retains copyright to that CD, and I can't distribute or modify the CD without permission. However I have an implied license to use that CD for it's intended use (listening), and Metallica can't just come knocking on my door one day telling me they've changed the license terms and I now have to pay 4.99 a month if I want to continue listening to the CD.

There may be some differences wrt the use of photographs and such on a website since technically they're distributing digital copies of your photograph, but I believe this would fall under fair use. And of course, all this assumes that you were compensated in some way for your work, if you weren't I would think it becomes a whole lot harder to prove that an implied license was given.

[nefarious]

i see your point about the implied lic.. as read here

The purpose of an implied license is to allow the licensee (the party who licenses the work from the copyright owner) some right to use the copyrighted work, but only to the extent that the copyright owner would have allowed had the parties negotiated an agreement. Generally, the custom and practice of the community are used to determine the scope of the implied license.

but that still doesnt answer all my image and right th modify questions...

im still gonna sell the site on the bastard!

[nefarious]

http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/art...=9463&deptid=3
this gets into it more

[nefarious]

also what if in the verbal agreement it was said that my company would do all the updates, new development etc etc at my standard rate of X..

it seems to me that we need to negotiate something new in writting.. and in the end thats all im tryint to establish...

[hessogood]

The court went further to state that because the license was supported by consideration, (i.e. the company paid contractor to create the work), the license was irrevocable and the contractor could not decide at a later date to revoke the license.

[nefarious]

we shall see.. hes also trying to go back on another contract and collect hardware from me

[benVFR]

There are a bunch of photography sites where this kind of issue gets discussed on a regular basis.

You might ask on one of those sites. Something tell me you're a bit screwed if you got yourself in this deep without a written contract as this is a pretty complex situation.

[nefarious]

im not out anything nor am i screwed.. its they are trying to screw me, so im just trying to gain leverage

[RandyO]

Originally posted by nefarious
Im sure the end user thinks he bought a site.. but in the end with out a contract he just hasnt..

this was a friend of the family all word of mouth you scratch my back ill scratch yours...

well it should get intresting at least

my understanding is that if you do not inform you client that you retain ownership of your work product, that you do not own it, he does.

A person paying for a work product owns the work product unless other wise agreed to before starting the project

if you didn't tell him up front of your policy about product ownership, I think you SOL,

[nefarious]

its not the same for copyright as it is for product actually its the exact opposite as far as i can see.


example.. you hire a wedding photographer... in the end.. unless he/she signs a work for hire contract.. she retains all copyrights

[RandyO]

Originally posted by nefarious
its not the same for copyright as it is for product actually its the exact opposite as far as i can see.


example.. you hire a wedding photographer... in the end.. unless he/she signs a work for hire contract.. she retains all copyrights

I think you better speak with a lawyer

copyrighting only means that you are retaining ownersship of your work product and all rights to reproduce it, you have to inform you customer that that is your policy, if you don't, your customer owns the work product, he paid for it

you do not automaticly own your work product

[nefarious]

keep coming across similar text

It seems like a silly question, doesn't it? The usual answer would be…”well, I paid good money to have my web development company build the site. Of course I own the web site.” It would probably come as a surprise to you to learn that you actually may not won your web site at all. If you, like the vast majority of Internet based businesses had your site developed by an independent development company, you may not own your web site at all, even though you may have paid good money to have the developer create the site. The developer may actually own your site in the legal sense.

If the work is considered to be a “work made for hire” under the definition that is contained in the Copyright Act, you will be considered to be the “author” of the work with the right to claim a copyright. If you have your web site created by a bona fide “employee,” the work will be a “work made for hire.” However, there are three requirements that must be met in order for a work that is created by an independent contractor to be considered a “work made for hire.” If all three of these requirements are not met, the independent contractor will be considered the author of the work with all copyrights to the work.

The first requirement is that the work be “specially ordered or commissioned” by you. In most cases, this test will be met if you have contracted the web developer to create your web site from scratch and not based upon a site that the developer has previously created.

The second test is more difficult. In order to be considered a work made for hire, the work must fall within one of the statutory categories. These categories are limited to (1) contribution to a collective work; (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; (3) a translation; (4) supplementary work; (5) a compilation; (6) an instructional text; (7) a test; (8) answer material for a test; or (9) an atlas. As you can see, most web site creations will not fall within one of the above listed categories and will therefore not be considered “works for hire.”

If the web site does fall within one of the categories listed above, there is a third requirement that must be met in order for the web site to be considered a “work made for hire.” This third requirement is that there must be an agreement that is signed by the parties that expressly makes the work a “work made for hire.” Specific language must be used in connection with the work for hire clause.

[nefarious]

which leads into this... exactly what i was getting at

The issue of who owns your web site can have very significant and potentially devastated effects on your online business. Let’s assume that you had a web site developed by an independent contractor. The agreement with the developer did not contain a “work for hire” provision. The developer would be considered to be the author of your web site and has the right to assert the copyrights to the work. Let’s also assume that the developer took the initiative and registered a copyright application with the United States Copyright Office. He would have the right to make this registration because he is the “author” of the site. Later you decide to have some modifications done to your site. You call your original developer who quotes you a development fee that you feel is too high. You shop around a bit and find someone who you think will do a good job for about half the price that the original developer quoted you. You deliver the files for the original web site to the new developer who does the modification to your complete satisfaction. You pay the new developer for the work and have the new developer place the new material online.

[nefarious]

Before you know it, you are receiving certified mail from the original developer accusing you of infringing on his web site by having someone else modify the original work. Legally speaking, absent other facts, the original developer would be correct in his assertion. As the owner of the copyright on the original web site, the original developer has certain exclusive rights that are protected under the United States Copyright Laws. One of those exclusive rights is the exclusive right to create “derivative works” based upon the original work. Derivative works would likely include the modifications that you had the second web developer perform. These modifications would constitute infringement of the original developer’s copyright. He would be entitled file a copyright infringement actions against you, and perhaps even against the second developer. He could sue you for his actual damages that resulted from the infringement. Because he filed a Copyright Registration, he would also have the option of electing to take statutory damages instead of going through the process of proving his actual damages. Statutory damages can be in amounts up to $25,000.00 or, if the original developer could prove that your infringement was “willful,” up to $100,000.00. These statutory damages apply even if the original developer could not show that he was damaged at all by the infringement. In addition to the statutory damages, the original developer would be eligible for an award of attorney fees against you.