Well this one will bake your noodle but I also spoke to a IP Specialist on this subject and he stated (again take this as second hand arm chair legal blah blah) that you can't actually sell copyright in that you can't give it away no matter what. All you do is agree to allow a customer/client etc to use it without being sued for it etc.. but the DNA of copyright will always belong to the creator... The agreements that go over the top of this foundation piece is in around how one agrees to use / profit from it... so if you do a cartoon and "sell" your artwork to me, then we are both agreeing that I promise not to sell my artwork to others in exchange for your exclusivity. That's kinda the heart and soul of it (from my interpretation) - also Design Act is a different pedigree to Copyright so one has to register their "creation" first before you can hide under the design act.
eg. Microsoft software is actually kind of "leased" not owned by you.. in that the EULA calls out some scary crap around what you agree to do and cant... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-sneaky-change-in-windows-licensing-terms/156 --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Price <step...@littlevoices.com>wrote: > The laws of Copyright are fun, no? > I've learned a fair bit on the subject through my cartooning. Basically you > can't copywrite an idea, only a work of art. So I can do my own version of > something I saw somewhere else and its considered a new work of art. The > piece is copywrited, and owned by the artist. You can sell the copyright but > as you mentioned it has to be explicitely mentioned in the contract, and you > can also charge more accordingly. Not specifying who owns it automatically > makes ownership fall to the artist. Artists are protected quite well in > Australia. There are also companies who can go out and find unclaimed > royalties from works of art (I'm a member of one such company through my > Australian Cartoonist Association membership - Their name is Viscopy). Hmm I > wonder if they would also do that for screen designs and such. Might have to > look into that. :) > you raise an interesting point, if you were not the creator but you > modified an existing peice. Artistic works dont normally have multiple > versions and/or multiple artists. lol can of worms! > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Like. >> >> That being said, there is gray areas around IP and who owns what etc >> especially when it comes to Copyright. After just having to deal with a >> minor skirmish around Copyright ownership with a Govt Dept (I used a >> throw-away design I did on my blog as an example of metro.. the took offence >> to it even after i pulled it down once i learnt they were sad...*gasp*), the >> lesson I learnt is that once you connect to a corporate network the IP in >> itself becomes yours. As even though some contracts state you have to hand >> over all work that belongs to blah blah in the end my legal advice given was >> that because the work defined in around ownership wasn't clear and the fact >> I used my laptop to produce the work, then unless it was created prior to my >> arrival i owned copyright both under the Design Act 2003 and Generic >> Copyright laws (except it was also a dark area given Copyright >> in Australia basically says that if no agreement is in place you the creator >> own it automatically unless your doing work for govt... talk about stacking >> the pack :D). >> >> Anyway, I innocently did my thing and didn't think much of it until i get >> drawn over the coals for copyright all because I connected a laptop to the >> network that i owned..so...i'd prefer to see how this legally impacts the >> individuals specifically around IP/Copyright first before I start getting >> all sugar high on socketing a laptop into the network of a company... >> >> (as I type this on my laptop into a company...didn't say i learnt my >> lesson :D). >> >> --- >> Regards, >> Scott Barnes >> http://www.riagenic.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Mitch Denny <mitch.de...@readify.net>wrote: >> >>> I must say that “I don’t care” what others are going to do, all I know is >>> that I am way more productive with my home setup (four 1920x screens) with >>> complete control over my environment. As a consultant it also makes things >>> much easier, companies like Suncorp waste a lot of money going through their >>> desktop provisioning process when they won’t let contractors and consultants >>> drop their machines on their network. >>> >>> >>> >>> From a security point of view, it also encourages the IT department to be >>> open in what they will support (extending the Internet into their >>> environment) but being much more security conscious about sensitive systems. >>> It might mean the end of the egg-shell defence. >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole who pays for it question is probably a separate one. Suncorp >>> might be doing this to avoid paying for a laptop refresh, and possibly some >>> licenses, but they need to be careful. For example, if you have a grad >>> working there, and they are using Office Student edition to do work for >>> Suncorp that could be a violation of the agreement. >>> >>> >>> >>> So the whole mechanics of software licensing is going to have to change >>> as well. If I was a Microsoft Account Manager, or any other account manager >>> I would be a little bit nervous because suddenly Suncorp doesn’t have as >>> much buying power, which affects the ability to make one sale to heavily >>> impacts quota. Their targets (if they are smart) are going to start to be >>> built around applications, and server licenses, not the desktop. >>> >>> >>> >>> They should be lining up with vendors such as Dell and Lenovo to produce >>> compelling offers inside Suncorp which include the hardware, os, and >>> productivity suite. >>> >>> >>> >>> My 2c >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> *Mitch Denny >>> *Readify | Chief Technology Officer >>> >>> Suite 408 Life.Lab Building | 198 Harbour Esplanade | Docklands | VIC >>> 3008 | Australia >>> >>> M: +61 414 610 141 | E: mitch.de...@readify.net | W: www.readify.net >>> >>> [image: Description: Description: cid:image006.png@01CAF06E.1EF9B2F0] >>> >>> The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential >>> communication between Readify Pty Ltd and the intended addressee and is for >>> the sole use of that intended addressee. If you are not the intended >>> addressee, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this >>> material is unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in >>> error please contact the sender immediately and then delete the message and >>> any attachment(s). >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: >>> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *David Connors >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 March 2011 8:42 AM >>> *To:* ozDotNet >>> *Cc:* David Kean >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] BYO Computer @ Suncorp >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:05 AM, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds like a justification for spending less money on work machines. I’m >>> failing to see why this is a good thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm with you. This is batshit crazy. Plus who the hell is going to bring >>> their machine from home and join it to a domain or run VS.NET through >>> citrix all day. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pass. >>> >>> >>> >>> Work buying you an awesome machine and allowing you to take it home for >>> some personal use is a benefit - but buggered if I'd be interested in the >>> other way around. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *David Connors* | da...@codify.com | www.codify.com >>> Software Engineer >>> Codify Pty Ltd >>> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 >>> 417 189 363 >>> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors >>> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact >>> >> >> >
<<image001.png>>
