Andreas wrote:
> >Brent wrote:
> >This situation is unique to Web designers really, this
> potential for "our
> work" to be dramatically altered subsequent to its completion; I
> can't think
> of any other creative category of work that is so dynamic and transitory.
> If I design a paper brochure for a client, I know that they
> aren't going to
> subsequently alter the colors, typefaces and photos while still calling it
> "my" brochure; just can't be done. Likewise a commissioned photo,
> magazine article, etc. Raises some interesting copyright and related
> issues, really.
If I scan a photograph, modify it and use it in my site, the owner of the
photo still has rights, right? So, what makes that any different than taking
a page layout that I have created and modifying it? The essence of the
original is still there, so seems I should get some credit in one way or
another, which would be determined in a contract, perhaps?
If I take a few paragraphs out of a book, add a few sentences of my own in
the middle, the original writer still has some rights, right? So why can
someone take a site that I've developed and rewrite a few lines of it
without having to recognize my rights in one way or another?
What makes the web different? Does it really just come down to "well, it's
easy to edit the text, so therefore you don't own it?" Is it really just the
fact that many people have not established their rights in their web
development contracts, and therefore a precedent has not been set?
>(Though not in this particular case, since as I
> say the feds
> own my work outright.)
OK, so you made an agreement, and your agreement was that all rights would
be forfeited, right? I think that's typical of work for hire contracts, but
I, for one, want to carefully consider what rights I'm giving up. If I
determine that giving all rights up is appropriate, then I'll do so, but I
want to have more to rely on when there's more "shades of gray" and a
contract does not directly stipulate that all rights have been absolved.
> >But in other cases it could be more legally problematic (this
> accords with
> matters Jack raised last week) -- basically, when a site is completed, who
> owns what, and who has what responsibilities/rights to alter and amend
> code, graphics and structure at a later date? Interesting...
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
> I've had the same problem: build a site for a client and then, a
> year later,
> they change quite a bit of it. It makes it difficult to put that in one's
> resume.
I think the "make a copy and present it on your own web site" method is a
good idea. I consider myself lucky in that I haven't had a single client
take a site out from under me and start hacking it at their whim. One way
that I've circuited a few attempts in the past is to create templates
(hooked to a database) that my clients can use to develop and change certain
portions of their site themselves. Sometimes giving them more control will
make them rethink hiring someone else to take care of their site. If they
can do it themselves (via the interface I create for them), then they don't
need to hire someone new. The interface usually allows them to edit text
(including the use of a few html tags for formatting) and allows them to add
new pages to specific sections. I can usually retain control of the images,
since many people don't want to fuss with them (just scare 'em with a little
truth about browser safe colors and file size reduction).
That won't always work, I'm sure. When it doesn't, I can see wanting to have
a copy of a site running from my portfolio, with perhaps a brief explanation
of the history of the project:
1) they wanted this
2) I helped them focus
3) we put it together
4) they liked it
5) they decided to take it in house for "xyz" reason.
I think it bites when you can't use a live web site in your portfolio
anymore (I had a client go out of business, so the site had to come down),
but I think there are ways to get around it being an obstacle.
> But legally, the client is right. If you do "work for hire," then you have
> no copyright or other rights to the work. The client holds all rights
> (assuming that they have paid royalties for images, etc.)
That is another issue to raise in a contract: "(assuming that they have paid
royalties for images, etc.)". The party responsible for paying royalties for
art acquired from other sources should be defined in the contract. If it's
not, I can see a client saying, when approached by a stock photo agency
lawyer, "Oh, no, I never said I'd pay those fees, Jack said he'd take care
of it as part of the project fee". Arg.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
