Forum Moderators: not2easy
I created a website for a client
If you made the website for a client then is the website not the clients to do what they want with it?
They went in and changed up my site
Its not YOUR website is it? So surely you dont own the copyright the client does?
I don't think you have a case, as long as you go paid why should you care?
As a general rule if these other people are claiming specific work that you did as their own, eg "This site was designed by (their name)" then you can ask them to remove that, but for anything else, you pretty much have to live with it. Unless you *did* get a contract, of course.
It's always a shame when someone "ruins" something that you've put so much work into, but unfortunately, that's sometimes just the way things are.
Also, you client's site is not yours. Don't even try to claim copyrights on that. There's something called moral copyrights, but once someone modifies the material, there is a shared copyright.
If you made the website for a client then is the website not the clients to do what they want with it?
^^ Way to early for this please see the statement below.
If you made the website for the client and the client have paid for the website then the client owns it not you so the client can do what they want with it.
The website is the property of the company, but what is on the website belongs to the copyright holder.
If the website developer was a direct employee if the company, the copyright belongs to the company.
If the contract specifies that it was a work-for-hire, then the copyright belongs to the company.
If after completion of the work, there was a document specifically transferring the copyright to the company, then the copyright copyright belongs to the company.
In almost all other cases, the copyright belongs to the developer.
There is a very good case that any changes at all could qualify as copyright infringement.
-------
All that said, a court might decide that part of the implied contact would be a company's right to change around their website within reason. You may have given up the right to complain when you allowed them to hire another company to do upkeep on your copyrighted work.
And it really is not cool to push your copyright claim in this case. They paid you for your work. The website itself is their's. You aren't going to get anything out of complaining, you will just piss them off.
So while you may be in a decent legal position, you aren't in a very good moral position.
But in the absence of a contract, then the 'implied contract' would almost certainly be that whatever you created, you created specifically for them, to their specifications; they paid you for your time, so what you did was theirs, all theirs.
Your legal AND moral position is weak, unless you had a clear understanding that you were hanging on to your rights. This was employment, not a partnership since dissolved.
Next time, get a contract. But don't get one that gives you copyright of stuff on someone else's site - it's no good to you (except vanity). And you won't get any intelligent person to sign such a deal.
Anyone who pays you to build a site wants you to do it, then walk away when the contract ends. They don't want to be forced to use your services forever, just because you designed the original template.
What you, as a professional, should want is the money - a fair price for a fair contracts work. If they renew, then great. But a client forced to work with you forever will never be a happy client. And they'll be sure to let you know.
But in the absence of a contract, then the 'implied contract' would almost certainly be that whatever you created, you created specifically for them, to their specifications; they paid you for your time, so what you did was theirs, all theirs.
According to the Nolo press web site, actually the opposite is true. For detailed info of who owns the copyright for works created by employees and independent contractors, see the Nolo press site [nolo.com] on copyright ownership.
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 4:03 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2006]
But if it's anything like the website discussions I have been involved in - and anything like the general owner-designer relationship, then I'd see it as a 'work for hire' arrangement.
Your source seems to believe that can only only exist as a written contract - and perhaps that's true in the US; but in most countries, any contract that can exist as a written one, is equally valid when verbal (just harder to prove).
And the discussion usually starts "I want you to make a website for me"
We cannot know without having been there; clearly, if webmstr feels the need to hold on to his work, he needs a lawyer, and needs to start writing down the conversations he had before he started.
I'm still betting he'll lose; the one area where law has enough precedents to sink a battleship is contract law - and , as they still say, 'possession is nine tenths of the law' - and by gum it is ;)
That way you get to show the art you created for someone, and you make it understood that whatever is there now is no longer your original creation. The company gets the site they want, and you get to show it as you intended it to be seen.
It will keep happening, though - as clients get more 'creative' they will come up with some awful things, and if you won't do it for them, they will find someone who will, and eventually what you made will be unrecognizable. It's tough to fight 'progress'?, but by saving your original works at least you can still be proud of and show what you made.
I think some of the people on this board are seemingly aggressive. Isn't this a place to help and get help?
Yes it is; but you won't always get what you want to hear, and you'd be unwise to assume aggression in such circumstances.
While for you the web site was an investment of you and your skills (a sentiment I fully understand), it would be useful for you to see the other POV - that a website is a functional thing, which evolves with circumstances.
Granted, it's sad when someone tinkers with a good site and - in your view - ruins it. But while you may have a legitimate claim to the work (or not), the site still belongs to the owner, who has to make decisions about it's role and purpose on a day-to-day basis.
For the artist, working for someone else can never be entirely satisfactory, and the only 100% effective remedy is to just work for yourself.
An interesting analogy would be the landscape gardener; however good the work, time marches on and adjustments have to be made. The owner may be foolishly thinking he can do as well without help; he may have hired someone else. He may have just got bored with the way it was. That's life :)
Your source seems to believe that can only only exist as a written contract - and perhaps that's true in the US; but in most countries, any contract that can exist as a written one, is equally valid when verbal (just harder to prove).
That is the way it is with most contracts, in most countries including the United States.
But in EVERY country there are things that cannot be done except by a written contract because they are too important.
In the United States, this includes transfer of copyright and sale of real estate.
Every other country where I have looked into it, which is admittedly only three, they have similar requirements. Transfer of copyright is considered to be much more serious than selling a piano.
I imagine there is a much wider variety of what would be considered a work for hire.
