PDA

View Full Version : Think you own copyright?


Eagle
16-12-2005, 06:01 PM
That website you paid for. Who owns the copyright? You? Are you sure? Did the web designer actually assign you copyright? In writing?...

That logo you paid for. Who owns the copyright? You? Are you sure? Did the graphic designer actually assign you copyright? In writing?...

It's worth checking to ensure you will have full legal rights to any design work (if desired) before you have it commisioned. If you don't, it always belongs to the originator.

Chase it now before it's too late. :)

Bumptastic
16-12-2005, 06:07 PM
Good points, are you bringing this up for a reason? Have you had a recent copyright battle or something? Just wondering your reason for the post.

Sarah

streamline
16-12-2005, 06:22 PM
Eagle,

Thanks for this thread - it is a point that so many people forget about. When getting some design work commissioned you need to get this point clarified 'in writing' otherwise it belongs to the originator.

Make sure you have agreed to purchase the copywrite with the final job and have it noted in the paperwork. And even if the job was FOC, then make sure you have written agreement of transfer of copywrite.

Eagle
16-12-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Bumptastic
Good points, are you bringing this up for a reason? Have you had a recent copyright battle or something?
Just posted the info as good advice - whether readers are my clients or not. :)

Widgey
16-12-2005, 10:43 PM
Actually, there is no copyright law in the UK for any of the above mentioned, so I learnt the hard way!!

The only type of copyright that is active in this country is publication copyright!! So that is, books, magazines etc according to the Copyright Association, whom I had a lovely conversation on the telephone with this morning!!

Now I know you're all going to fling responses at me left right and center saying this isn't true, but contact the copyright association and they'll only tell you the same thing.

If any of you have been charged for copyright (NOT PATENT DIFFERENT THING ALL TOGETHER) then you've been had!!

Check it out! no doubt they'll be bits online about it somewhere, but I got it from the horses mouth so to speak!!

good luck all!!

Paul

P.S. The copyright laws are ACTIVE in the US so before you decide to steal anyones content, make sure it isn't an american site!! lol only joking!!

Eagle
16-12-2005, 11:04 PM
The copyright laws are "active" in the UK too. In fact, in many cases, the UK legal system offers greater automatic protection to the originator (or subsequent owner).

According to UK law, you are not obliged to display a copyright notice () - as far as I'm aware, it's highly recommended in the US or things can go horribly wrong for you...

Eagle
16-12-2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by paulmorrissey
If any of you have been charged for copyright (NOT PATENT DIFFERENT THING ALL TOGETHER) then you've been had!!
Not quite true. The designer and client are at liberty to discuss copyright issues before the project begins. The designer is also very much at liberty to withold copyright assignment if they so choose. In that case, although rare, it's up to the client whether they accept those terms.

streamline
17-12-2005, 08:23 AM
I have to agree with Eagle - the points are correct. It is not a case of the client in the relationship 'being had!' far from it. It protects the agency too. What about when and agency creates some work (and it will be alot less in cost than the time it takes!).

In terms of copywrite and IP then it is something that the clients needs to have agreed prior to the comission. The agency does retain the IP if it is not agreed at the time of comission that the client wants to own this, or for an example - for the client to use the design work for other projects, then the agency owns IP. But, until the IP is signed over to a client, then it does belong to the agency - Thats just how it is!

If a client of mine wants to own IP, then yes no problem, I will include this within the final copywrite/IP sign off and sign over to the client, but there would be a very different price for the project. As if you look at it from the agency perspective, by givng the client the project (what ever it is) then the client can then produce their own work, and where does that leave the agency - work less!!

If companies want to do it properly, they would choose a creative partner who can work with them on an ongoing basis, so the client can do what he does the best 'running his business' and the agency will look after the creative, communications, style etc.

nomio
18-12-2005, 06:57 AM
OK so dim question time.... if the company owns the copyright to the logo and images but uses a webdesigner should they be getting the copyright to the website?

I'm about to get my site redesigned so it will be largely using the content of the existing site. Images have been taken by me, but will probably have to be edited by the webdesigner. the logo and little characters are my registered trademark but I'd like to have some sort of animation on the site so will I have to get the copyright to the additional graphics?

I really can't cope with another IP battle - the first one nearly finished me off!!

openmind
18-12-2005, 11:02 AM
OK lets say you used us as an example....

You own the copyright to your logo and any images you supply (assuming you actually own the images) If the logo or images are changed/adapted you would still retain the copyright.

The actual look and feel of the site, the coding and navigation structure would be owned by the developer. In it's purest form this simply means that you cannot pass the site off as if you developed it or resell or reuse the coding elsewhere without our permission.

nomio
18-12-2005, 04:13 PM
Oh trust me I own the copyright, paid heavily for it!!

OK so that makes sense but I'm guessing that not having ownership of the coding isn't the end of the world unless you have some super duper state of the art thing that is only used on your site and crucial to the business.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't most coding kind of standard or should you actually be paying for the copyright of the coding

openmind
18-12-2005, 04:15 PM
Coding does follow standards yes but the way it is structured is purely down to the developer.

For example, the code I write for a eCommerce store may be totally different to the coding written by someone else using the same languages...

AGB
18-12-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by openmind
OK lets say you used us as an example....

You own the copyright to your logo and any images you supply (assuming you actually own the images) If the logo or images are changed/adapted you would still retain the copyright.

The actual look and feel of the site, the coding and navigation structure would be owned by the developer. In it's purest form this simply means that you cannot pass the site off as if you developed it or resell or reuse the coding elsewhere without our permission.

This could work well for both parties if for example something goes wrong (standards change etc), the developer owns the code and hence has some interest in adapting it (it is part of their 'shop window'). This may depend very much on your contract though.

However you are then tied into that developer for any future updates. This can be OK if you struck a relationship with the developer, but if things turned sour....

A partnership approach is often the best way - tie everything up in a contract but agree it before hand - go in with your eyes wide open. It isn't worth trying to cheat the other party into a quick win deal (as it may also be happenning to you)!

Often it pays to meet face to face. It may cost a touch extra in the short term (time and money), but it can pay off big style in the long run.

openmind
18-12-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by AGB
However you are then tied into that developer for any future updates. This can be OK if you struck a relationship with the developer, but if things turned sour....

Not at all. If one of my clients wanted me to release the code so another developer could work with it, that's fine with me.

nomio
18-12-2005, 06:05 PM
I've just read this whole thread again and Paul I think you need to go back to the copyright people because somewhere along the line someone has misundersood someone else.

For a start there is definately copyright on things like photographs which is why places like Protoprint display huge signs saying don't ask us to photocopy photos, CD covers etc,etc. There are also numerous articles for professional photographers discussing the ins and outs of retaining copyright i.e. they should. For example I could perhaps pay someone to take a photo of my daughter in a Stickybobs painting smock then use it on my website, stationary, marketing materils etc,etc She then becomes the face of Stickybobs sindicated around the world (I can dream!) and the poor photographer gets what, 20 for an image that is making me millions.

There is also definately copyright on drawing/images/written word (which would extend to computer coding) and it automatically belongs to the originator unless there is a written document to say otherwise.

I read somewhere that authors should never take any papers from the general public because if it is a story of some type, Jo public can claim the copyright. So if I write a short story where Harry Potter ummm jumps from a rooftop onto his broomstick, hand that paper to JK Rowlings and in 3 books time there is a bit where HP does just that I can claim copyright.

sorry I'd just hate you to end up in a mess over IP rights

Naomi
www.stickybobs.com

openmind
18-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by nomio
I've just read this whole thread again and Paul I think you need to go back to the copyright people because somewhere along the line someone has misundersood someone else.[/url]

I do? You've confused me as I'm Phil??

openmind
18-12-2005, 06:13 PM
Oops ignore me, just realised Paul also posted in this thread... ;)