In the case of a product that is the result of multiple conjointed efforts and an especially loose policy, you might end up with no global ownership from everyone.
You've probably heard of "brands" that nobody can use because a lot of parties own portions of the brand and/or tech involved with this?
You *could* argue that this is the case here and go in courth, and, depending on how well you present your case, you could end up in a variety of scenarios.
But the de facto scenario (and jurisprudence is going to play a big role here) is that you've been paid for a service, and that, as a result, the contracting part assumes all respinsibility and ownership over that which was produced.
Who owns the code?
Laws vary by country but speaking for the UK system which will be similar to the US and Canadian one. Your remuneration normally doesn't have a baring on the ownership of the work. Copyright is automatically owned by your employer for any work you produced for them. It gets complicated when the work is considered service for hire which is in the case of a company hiring another company to do the work in which case the hired company owns the copyright by default but the original company generally has a licence to use the commissioned work. But they don't own the rights to the work unless it was formally agreed.
The classic example is a wedding photographer. If you hire someone to take photos of your wedding they own the copy right to those photos not you. You have to buy the rights to photos as part of the contract if you want to control the copyright.
The classic example is a wedding photographer. If you hire someone to take photos of your wedding they own the copy right to those photos not you. You have to buy the rights to photos as part of the contract if you want to control the copyright.
That's wrong on two accounts. First, the copyright is automatically with the creator, not the employer (except if you have signed a particularly and highly doubtful working contract with a slaver company -- some particularly abusive companies have you sign that they own everything including what you do in your free time, if you're stupid enough to sign it). Whether copyright can be traded/sold at all and whether or when it expires varies greatly across countries (it can, for example, be sold in the US -- it cannot in most EU countries).
Your remuneration normally doesn't have a baring on the ownership of the work. Copyright is automatically owned by your employer for any work you produced for them.
However, the important bearing of the remuneration is that this makes it (or it will at least be alleged as, when it comes to a lawsuit) a contract work. In which case the company that paid you owns everything. This doesn't vary much across countries. Even in countries where copyright is not tradeable, this means that you have the reserved right to keep a copy for yourself (as your "creator-right", this is distinct from "copy-right" e.g. in Germany), but you are not allowed to copy or reuse or sell it.
The really bad bit here is the "no written contract" part, because that will be several people from the ordering party against the single lonesome contractor. Even if nothing was ever agreed, they'll likely be able to "prove" (by testimony) that whatever they think was agreed.
The example of a wedding photographer is quite funny insofar as it is even much more complicated than merely copyright. The photographer certainly has the copyright on his work (if it is artistic, non-trivial -- again something you can dispute), however he is not allowed to make copies (in the EU, at least). An individual owns the rights on their own image, and it is a felony to make, copy, reproduce, or distribute images of people without their explicit consent.
That's wrong on two accounts. First, the copyright is automatically with the creator, not the employer (except if you have signed a particularly and highly doubtful working contract with a slaver company -- some particularly abusive companies have you sign that they own everything including what you do in your free time, if you're stupid enough to sign it).
[quote name='TechnoGoth' timestamp='1347500963' post='4979540']
Your remuneration normally doesn't have a baring on the ownership of the work. Copyright is automatically owned by your employer for any work you produced for them.
[/quote]
That's a common misconception http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership.htm the creator doesn't own the copyright for anything the produce as part of their employment it automatically owned by the employer regardless of its in your employment contract or not in the UK. Copyright is considered a form of property like any other so can be bought, sold, or traded.
The tricky part of OP problem comes down to what the relationships are.
If his friend is employed at a game company and paid the OP to do some of there work for them then the OP would be independent contractor and would in theory own the right to the derived work. The problem being of course that unless their friend got permission from the company to subcontract out to the OP then they didn't have any right to transfer the company's intellectual property to a third party and the OP's work would be illegal as they didn't have permissions from the original owner to make to use of the original code. So while the company can't use the OP work the OP can't either. They have of course opened themselves and their friend up to potential litigation by the company.
If the friend has a company that was hired to do work for the game company then it could be argued that the OP was an employee in which case the friends company would own the work.
That's a common misconception http://www.ipo.gov.u...c-ownership.htm the creator doesn't own the copyright for anything the produce as part of their employment it automatically owned by the employer regardless of its in your employment contract or not in the UK. Copyright is considered a form of property like any other so can be bought, sold, or traded.
Yes, but that's entirely jurisdictional-specific. In many countries, the "natural rights" of a creator can not be sold or given away, period. In such countries, the common-law concept of "public domain" simply does not exist. In other countries, such as the United States of America, there is a strict accrual of rights in a "work for hire" as set out by appropriate legislation, and of course lawyers are all over that with exploitative loopholes and greasy contracts. There is no simple statement of how copyright works that applies everywhere.
If you need to know how copyright works in your local jurisdiction, you need to consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright in your particular jurisdiction (or maybe two lawyers if you want two different and possibly conflicting opinions). Any other advice you get is simply bad advice.
Author
The tricky part of OP problem comes down to what the relationships are.
If his friend is employed at a game company and paid the OP to do some of there work for them then the OP would be independent contractor and would in theory own the right to the derived work. The problem being of course that unless their friend got permission from the company to subcontract out to the OP then they didn't have any right to transfer the company's intellectual property to a third party and the OP's work would be illegal as they didn't have permissions from the original owner to make to use of the original code. So while the company can't use the OP work the OP can't either. They have of course opened themselves and their friend up to potential litigation by the company.
If the friend has a company that was hired to do work for the game company then it could be argued that the OP was an employee in which case the friends company would own the work.
This is where it gets a little trickier. The instructions were handed down by the company that my friend has, while my pay came directly from the client, and I didn't use the tools of either to author my code.
Enough with all the complications. You don't own the code. If you want to own the code, hire a lawyer and pursue the matter.
Author
Tom I'm just trying to give information so I can get advice on a topic I'm not experienced in, that's all. I've seen so many differing answers from so many places.
Thanks for your input.
Thanks for your input.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
