If this happened to you

what would you do?

[seofan]

Let's say you worked for one of the top 3 web design firms in the state as an SEO specialist. Then you get laid off with 70% of the rest of the company. (Only sys admins and pompous, non-techie CEO's left).

As *hit hits the fan over the next year, many clients move hosting elswhere from your old company. They move their site files.

Let's say one day you are checking high profile client sites you optimized just to "see how they're doing" a year later in rankings. To your shock, you see that the set of meta tags that includes your distinctive outline, additions (unlike any other) are still in the client site files on the new company host, but the webmaster has put HIS name in as the Author in the meta information. (You see, one of the things you do for identification of work is to include <meta name="Author" content="YOUR NAME - SEO, SEP ">)

After the gut-stabbing, wrenching betrayal feeling starts to subside a bit, you start to wonder...."Do I email the %^&* and tell him to remove his &*() name out of the code?" just because he didn't do any of it (it's still 100% designed and optimized - NOT by him) - or do you just chew on your lips for 3 days and let it ride?

Or what else crosses your mind?

[littleman]

Let it ride.

[chiyo]

did your contract with them include ownership of all your code and content you developed for them? Hopefully you had a contract that clearly outlined what ownership you and them retain for different aspects as a result of the contracted work.

Ethically I guess if they are attempting to mislead others that the material was created by them and not just bought, you may have cause to get angry. On the other hand they may just have cut and pasted changes to the pages site-wide, without worrying or thinking, therefore it may be accidental. I would send off a polite question email. Do you realise that your pages are blah blah blah?

Usually emails shot off in anger lack objectivity.

[seofan]

I didn't say it was me, did I? :)
The only thing changed in the code is the name of the Author. It is a clear, blantant attempt by the "less than honorable" webmaster to pass the work off as his.

Cheesy thing is.....the company had rights to their files - they were transferred to a new host in their entirety.

If it were me (grin again)....all I would want is for the person not to refer to themself as the author. Just clip that one tag out altogether. It's just equating in my brain to something like buying rights to a book to resell and then pasting your name over the authors title or buying a disk of clip art and reselling it as "your own" clip art.

[Marcia]

seofan, I had my copyright removed from a whole site and someone else put it as copyright to them. I keep documentation of everything, so some long, strong emails to the web host demanding that my intellectual property be removed from public view on the server ended up getting the whole site changed except my metas and title on the main page. The design is mine, and I'll use it for myself eventually, right down to the identical keyword density and adapted graphics.

If it was subcontracted and you were actually the contractor (independent contractor) for the job, it's one thing. But if you were an employee it's work_for_hire which is different and the problem is the company's, with you having no recourse but to let the former employer know and do what they want about it. They just need documentation, and if they have it, can have it removed from the host unless they're given proper credit.

That's the way I've seen the difference explained. I suppose it depends on what agreement you had with the employer.

[seofan]

Yes Marcia - thank God for screenshots and such. Shocking when something like this happens. I'm glad you were successful in defending your property.

It's hard to back off of something far enough to see it clearly. Thanks for the opportunity and assistance to keep backing up for a while. My eyes were burning there for a bit...

It's real easy to get tweaked off when you know weeks and months go into projects - to see it passed off right in front of you as someone elses work. But....we don't want those hot, incoherent emails going off into cyberspace. Chiyo, the client contract does allow them to have use of the files, but they can not claim development of those files. So, I guess it is time to get to Word and draft out that eloquent "Immediate Request for Removal" in a "sincerely yours" tone. Thanks all.

[JayC]

Maybe at least as important as whether there are legal avenues or copyright violations in question is that to leave an entire site unchanged except for the author metatag is simply wrong.

From a legal standpoint, if this happened to... somebody... there's probably not much to be done. So, should one write a letter asking for the tag to be removed anyway? I think I probably would... and I think most people who received such a message would either to ahead and remove the tag, or make a couple of changes to the pages and laugh, "ha! now I am the author!"

[Brett_Tabke]

If the code is legally on his side under his ownership. There is nothing to do. Let it ride and move along.

[seofan]

Just got an email from a co-developer in the project that I still work with. The original design contract was tied in with hosting and full maintenance. Since those arrangements were eventually changed, the files were released to be transferred to a new host a year and a half ago. They were released for use, but the copyrights were not released to the client in the contract agreement.

It appears that they want visitors to assume that they created the site by changing the author and "site created by" information since nothing else changed. Hopefully this will have a subtle end with the removal of those claims. Thanks everybody.

[Crazy_Fool]

regardless of what name is shown in the code, surely you could have soemthing on your site to say that *you* did it? if you did do it, then surely there is nothing legally they can do about it? if they make a couple of tiny changes, you can still say you did the original and it has now been very very slightly modified, can't you?

[click watcher]

life sucks

but the real question is what do you personally stand to gain or lose by a change of authorship metatag???

>>>you can still say you did the original and it has now been very very slightly modified, can't you?

exactly right, and if you're looking to use the site as an example of your work you still can.

otherwise let it drop, the time, energy and frustration involved in chasing them up will be too costly for you compared to the return.

sidenote, i have no legal background but a very good friend of mine is a contract dispute lawyer, who makes more money than i can dream about - off the back of the fact that contracts are very rarely drawn up watertight and often the side with the most money will win the case

[webdiversity]

I'd be inclined to let it ride and be really proud of the quality of your work that someone else wants to claim it as their own, must be one of the true testaments to the quality of your work.

Assuming the other guy is a chump, if questioned on his methodology he may struggle, if he doesn't then. As you were an employee you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any court I don't think, but all my law knowledge is from LA Law, Ally McBeal, Petrocelli (anyone remember that far back or am I showing my age ?)

Take pride & move on

[seofan]

The problem with claiming that you have done a site without the site files identifying you or your company in any manner (and actually mentions someone else) is credibility.

Here is a nice site with high visibility. The site files identify someone else as author.

Then there you are on another site, politely claiming authorship of site XXXX.

Who would visitors believe? The actual site files say one thing and you say another.

I think that an unfair burden is placed on us to "prove" that our own work is ours. Yes it is time consuming and frustrating. Part of the frustration comes from being put in the position of having to prove anything at all.

I remember a colleague of mine being ordered by a former employer to remove their references to sites from their online resume. Even though the programmer had performed nearly all of the work found on the sites, the employer was trying to regulate what was posted on their website as part of their online resume.

"Tis a sad day when passing ruffians can say NEEE to old ladies at will." - Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Roger the Shrubber.

[backus]

I don't really think there is that much you can do about it. I'd write a letter to the owners of the website stating it was you who did the work, not the name on the web, and that, although you won't be persuing the matter, should they wish to have he quality of promotion they received before, then your services are on offer. and as a returning customer, give them a discount.

[bird]

Did you write their content for them?
Because that is how I understand the "Author" meta tag.

The person casting the content into HTML and possibly tweaking it for SEO purposes is not necessarily the author. In analogy to print media, maybe there should be an extra "typesetter" meta tag... ;)

Not that this eliminates any issues with the copyright of the site design, just that you might have to look for other methods of reference than a potentially misleading meta tag.

[seofan]

Nice end to this delima. The offending webmaster has consented to remove the references of any authorship on the site or in code. At least a partial victory is better than none. Hope everyone has good luck avoiding these type of unpleasantries.

[Crazy_Fool]

thats good news :)

[tbear]

Just a quick mention that the smae happened to me 'cept they just put a designed by on the page and overlooked taking my name out of the meta tags. Don't think the new 'designer' knew much about html.... LOL.
That's 4 years ago, by the way!