In my relatively limited experience in this realm I can offer a couple experiences: The predatory model. This is the model under which a company pays someone to develop/ create content or software (Access databases leap to mind as an example where I've seen amazing abuses), but the creating company retains all ownership of and copyrights to the content. (note that I have no quarrel with folks who develop an access database and selling it; I take great exception to people who create artificial lock-in to those products by refusing to allow anyone else to 'see' the code and/ or modify it, ESPECIALLY when said code was developed for a particular client and for a specific purpose). This model is usually used by companies that are very much looking for that lock-in, and sometimes may not even be legal. The problem is that these 'providers', for lack of a better word, often target clients with very limited funds who are willing to forego their freedoms because they think they can't afford a better way, or (more often) simply don't understand what they're really giving up until they try to move their content/ site/ data elsewhere and the contract rears it's ugly head. The real misfortune is that most of these companies simply don't have the time/ money/ energy/ resources to fight the contract, and take their drubbing and move quietly along, with an expensive and painful lesson under their belt. I wish painful things on companies that do business in this manner because I have yet to hear of a fair and good reason for putting such restrictions on content or data that is not yours in the first place. This model is unfortunately very much alive and well; I had a customer ask me what I thought of it just last week for a website (it was cheap; $250, plus $25-40/mo, I can't recall exactly how much).
The Proprietary CMS: This is when the client retains the copyrights to their site, but it lives on a framework that you can't take with you. Usually this is slightly less painful to move away from because at least you can run a wget against the site and not run up against some inane copyright enforcement issue down the road, but you lose the whole engine that makes your site work well. You usually end up running a long drill of cut n' paste to migrate your site to it's new home. When we develop sites/ content/ software/ databases/ code (PHP, C, Perlyuck, etc.)/ whatever for our customers, we deliver (as Bradley said, upon full payment for services rendered) a full, BSD style license for the work. That gives them full rights to do... whatever... with the work, while allowing us to reuse code as appropriate and needed. We also give a written contract stating that if they ever want to move off our servers, we will deliver to them a zipfile of their database if one exists and ALL of the files that make up their site, so that they can set it up elsewhere. We never want to be accused of trying to take ownership of something that isn't ours, and, by giving them the freedom to move elsewhere at will it provides us extra incentive to treat them well and provide good service, thus making them less likely to want to tell us where we can go... :) My $0.02... Rubin On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 16:50 -0400, Bradley Holt wrote: > Stan, > > You bring up a very good point - the term "work for hire" looks > innocuous enough sitting in a contract, but contractors need to be > aware that this phrase has a very specific legal meaning. I am not a > lawyer, but it basically means that all work created during time paid > for by the client is immediately owned by the client. Employment > relationships are "work for hire" by default meaning that everything > you do while on-the-clock is copyrighted to your employer. Contract > relationships are *not* "work for hire" by default and "work for hire" > cannot be assumed - it must be explicitly stated in a written > contract. There are further restrictions as to the types of work that > can be "work for hire" (regardless of what any contract says) and from > what I can tell (again, not a lawyer) software is not one of these > types of work. > > Thanks, > Bradley > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Stanley Brinkerhoff > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bradley, > > > > Thank you for the feedback. I think I mistakenly stated "work for hire" as > > a general contractual relationship. My intent was a general relationship > > with a vendor under a contract, or by the hour, etc. Not what you allude to > > as the correct meaning (which I am unclear of). > > > > Others? > > > > Stan > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Bradley Holt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Stan, > >> > >> Interesting questions! I'll tell you what our marketing, design, and > >> development studio (Found Line) does. I have some ideas on how our > >> approach compares and contrasts with what others in the industry do, > >> but I'd rather not make too many assumptions about other companies so > >> I'll stick to talking about what we do. > >> > >> First, we *never* do work for hire. This is, in my opinion, a really > >> bad idea for most creative firms. There are many problems with work > >> for hire including putting your intellectual property at risk (for you > >> and your clients!). Also, the laws on work for hire are strange when > >> it comes to software - I'm not even sure if it's possible for software > >> to be done as a work for hire (other than as an employee, of course). > >> > >> For all non-software work (design, illustration, copy, etc.) we do a > >> *full* copyright transfer to the client, upon full payment, of the > >> delivered work. The client typically does not get copyright > >> transferred on rounds leading up to the final deliverable. We do *not* > >> charge any licensing or royalty fees. The client owns the work > >> (assuming they paid their invoice) and can use it however they would > >> like. > >> > >> For software, we don't do a full copyright transfer as this would > >> impractical. With software it makes sense to be able to reuse code, > >> and if we transferred copyright we would never be able to do this. > >> Instead, we license software to our clients using the free/open source > >> New BSD License. This gives us full protection - we still hold the > >> copyright and own the software. It also gives our clients total > >> freedom - they can use the software however they want, modify the > >> source code, release modified (or unmodified) versions, even integrate > >> it with proprietary software if they want. We build all of our web > >> applications now on Zend Framework which also uses the New BSD License > >> so this helps keep licensing simple and consistent for our clients. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Bradley > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Stanley Brinkerhoff > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hey All, > >> > > >> > As many of us do -- I have a few groups that I do work with that > >> > occasionally want me to help them with some work on their website. One > >> > such > >> > group works with an out of state Vendor that has locked them in pretty > >> > tight, developing everything "in their cms" that is proprietary and > >> > closed > >> > source. From my past experience as a consultant doing web-work, as well > >> > as > >> > taking over contracts of over consultants (and losing a few), as well as > >> > my > >> > limited experience with media organizations in Vermont -- what is the > >> > prevalence towards the attitude towards ownership of the work-for-hire > >> > of > >> > both design and application development? > >> > > >> > Is it standard for closed-source inhouse-developed CMS vendors to say > >> > "you > >> > cant access any code we've developed"? > >> > Is it standard for vendors to say "we made it we own it" in terms of > >> > content, assets (flash, pdf, etc), and design? > >> > Is it standard for full-custom code (in PHP, Python, etc) to be fully > >> > licensed to the customer and changes to the source allowed without > >> > distribution rights? > >> > > >> > My belief was that most companies provided a royalty free, perpetual, > >> > and > >> > source license to their cms products. Specifically this belief was > >> > enforced > >> > by attending the Montpelier Vermont website selection committee in which > >> > the > >> > three vendors who were finalists all said their products were the > >> > property > >> > (whenever possible) of the client. > >> > > >> > The exception to this (taht seems ok) would be someone selling a sourced > >> > based framework/toolkit in which a site is deevloped on (ie, a website > >> > developed on an ASP.NET platform with Microsoft's toolkit), or otherwise > >> > commercially available and supported system that is documented and is > >> > decoupled from the work-for-hire. > >> > > >> > Thoughts? Experiences? I know we have a few developers on this list > >> > (*cough*) who can contact me off list as well if they prefer. > >> > > >> > Stan > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://bradley-holt.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > -- Rubin Bennett rbTechnologies, LLC 80 Carleton Boulevard East Montpelier, VT 05651 (802)223-4448 http://thatitguy.com "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
