Forum Moderators: LifeinAsia
I have a potential client, Mr. C (not his real name) who wants to hire me to do a site redesign. However, he is insistent about having language in our contract that grants him sole copyright to any work that I do for him, including the code and design of the site.
I don't have a problem with him owning the content or logos, but if I create a site I want to retain the right to use aspects of it in the future (eg.,feature it on my portfolio page). Also, my understanding is that if I relinquished all my rights to the site, Mr. C could hire another web developer after me who could then represent the site as his own work.
How do you usually handle this type of situation with clients? Thanks...
Ok, here's what I can tell you. There are two types of copyrights.
Moral rights and more economic rights.
When you do a design for a client and in your case he asks for the copyrights - these are mainly the economic rights. The right for him to make money off it and not pay you a licensing fee.
Moral rights, in some jurisdictions, are not transferable - ever. If you make something - no one can ever claim that you did not nor remove that claim from you. Hence, you should be able to use that in a portfolio, as long of course, as you don't post the entire site on your own site!
Think about it, it's like including a picture of a painting you did in a print portfolio. You sold the painting, but the owner cannot stop you from saying you created it or to show a picture of it. These same rights can be somewhat limited in time due to non disclosure agreements and so on.
Having said all of this, many Web designers insist on keeping economic copyrights on Web designs. I think it's ludicrous, considering how much one's design can be butchered by a latter developer. Also stopping a Web site operator from modifying a design to his requirements, after the job has been done, is a straightjacket that is not conclusive to business.
In all things, keeping a good balance that respects the interests of both parties is best.
What you discussing though is a "work for hire." That being said, in general, the person who hires you to do the work owns all copyrights, IN GENERAL. From copyright.gov
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9 [copyright.gov], Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.
While you may maintain "authorship," everything else is subject to the terms of your contract. People who pay for web sites generally want ownership to the copyright so a design cannot hold them "hostage" so to speak. Again, depending on the terms of your contract, you can include language that permits you to use images of the design for promotional purposes and such or that you retain ownership of say scripts that you frequently use and that you are allowing the client to use the scripts and that this "limited license" only applies while he/she uses the design as provided without modifications, and that the scripts cannot be reused by another should the design be changed.
In other words, a lot of fine print can protect you and your client.
Marshall
Massive companies typically only have the rights to their creative media for an agreed period of time, after which if they want to rerun adverts or similar they need to pay their agency additional fees.
If you do decide that you are happy to have your copyright assigned to Mr. C then you should be able to agree in the same contract that he will license certain uses back to you; such as the right to show it (with limitations as required) in a portfolio.
The crunch point for many designers is not another designer claiming to have done the work; it is another designer creating a derivative work. You might have created something really innovative which means that another much cheaper designer can just 'remix' your designs for new purposes (for that same client). Retaining the copyright whilst granting full irrevocable license for use as-is prevents this as it means only you are authorised to work on new designs building upon this current one.
If you are really worried about it, licensing out the copyright may be a good alternative. However, if he wants to own the entire copyright, that is not uncommon. To prevent you from using any elements that are similar may be a bit strong, and I would work out a way to avoid that, mostly because you probably can't do that. There are a lot of sites with very similar design on them, and they can't prevent another user from doing something similar, just as long as they don't copy the code from them.
Hope that helps,
Jeff
it is a non-issue between most clients and vendors
Personally, I now believe in licensing a particular incarnation for a design, and assignment only for logos and branding instructions. Assignment of copyright on complete designs attracts significant additional fees. In the past I thought differently and freely assigned copyright but in the spirit of the rest of the project; if they want something more then they should have to pay for it.
I think your conclusion is at the wrong end of the scale;
I have to agree with VVV. Me, my standard contract, and in fact the FAQ's on my web site, state that I shall retain copyright ownership unless otherwise specified. I personally rather have a catch-all in my favor than someone else's.
There is one area where it can get touchy though. I am often contracted by hosting companies to design for their clients, so the copyright issue can get confusing in that situation.
Marshall
I think your conclusion is at the wrong end of the scale
Well I'm glad I asked then. If this is the experience of most of the respondents here (and it seems to be), I will take your word for it. At first I didn't see what the big deal was, because you don't really copyright code unless it is unique and for a specific purpose. But now I see the bigger issues that can arise. For example, if I design a custom layout for a client I want to be able to use that layout as basis for a future project.
