Using what you did not design

"You hire someone to design an element of a web site for you."

IMO, if you own the code, you can use it wherever. There may be some cases where the designer may restrict the use of their design. Such as when you purchase templates from some sites.

I agree with Mark, as much as it bother's me sometimes, once you've sold something to a client they are free to do whatever they want with it as long as there weren't any end user agreements of any kind.

Wrong -- maybe. If they were subcontracted then the designer owns the copyright unless it has been implicitly signed over to the client.

I went through this with a client of mine from the days when I was doing print design. They dumped an Ad Agency and that Agency ran them through the wringers making them pay for every last piece of copy/artwork they did for them.

So if the client or the designer has the rights to the code, pictures, etc then the person that originally did the code, pictures, etc cannot complain. They did something that the designer or client bought and has the copyright to. So the designer or client can do what they want with it. Is that right?

Brooke

The copyright has to be implicitely signed over or it still belongs to the person who created it. Buying the copyright would have to be part of the contract -- it it wasn't, then it was never bought.

I think that it depends upon what is in the contract. If it is specified in the contract who owns what, then it is pretty clear. If there is no contract, then the owner of the website owns it outright unless the designer puts up:
Copyright by Designer
instead of
Copyright by Website Name

Well, in almost all dealings I have done it is always explicitly stated in the contract that, when at the completion of the project everything (code/graphics/etc) becomes sole property of the client unless stated otherwise and this is how I've seen it done for the most part since I've been in the biz.

Now if you have a special type of contract like an ASP or your role is on-going then obviously the contract would be different.

No, the creater of the work owns the copyright.

Again, I went through this with a client who lost literally thousands of dollars because they made the mistake of thinking they owned the copyright of work produced, for them, by a subcontractor. That subcontractor still owns the copyright unless it is explicitely signed away.

Yea, what Peter said -- you've got to get it in the contract that your buying all rights to work a subcontractor is producing.

When in doubt, put it in print.

You are talking about two very different things, DoubleHelix. If an ad agency creates some print advertisement, then sure they own the copyright on it unless they sign it over. On the web, it gets a little foggier. A developer owns the design and the coding. The site owner would own all the content on the site. It would be pretty easy for a designer to prove that his design and images were his. It would be near impossible for him to prove that the code was his. It technically is his code but courts having never been friendly to the code argument.

But again, specify who gets what in the contract.

Like Mark said.....the easiest thing to do is put everything in writing.

Anything I design for others is still, in essence, mine. I do not give away the copyrights to the original work but rather grant my clients the right to use what I have created for their business. I am very specific about items copyrighted to me not being given away or sold to other entities.

As a sub-contractor that rule applies as well. I am creating something for someone, who will in turn sell that to their client. I give them the rights to sell it to their client but the end user may not sell the copyrighted material and is stated so in an end user agreement (similar to what you would have when you purchase royalty free photos for a client).

I view the price I pay for custom scripting and code the same as I would if I was buying a user license for a BBS, for example. I am licensing the custom code or script for the use on one site for a specific client. If I were to need that same custom code or script for another client I would first get the permission of the author and pay them an appropriate licensing fee for it's use. For me this is an integrity and business ethics issue. If I am going to financially gain from the sale then I believe it is only right that the original author also reap the benefits of that gain.

Another issue is that common things cannot be copyrighted. So you can't copyright the html code for a table, for instance. No matter how clever you are in putting it together.

The big one for me is the difference between subcontracting and being work for hire. Under work for hire, everything you create is owned by the person you work for, period. Copyright and all.

For most of what I do, I don't care. If people want to try to reuse it, great! But for my photographs, such as they are, forget it. Not only because I took them, but usually they are of my children and I don't want my childrens photos being used without my permission.

Copyright is about control. But you should make sure you have the right to copyright in the first place -- your agreement, contract, et cetera could remove that right if you don't read it carefully.

***
Devil's advocate -- how much of what you do is worth it? Is it really worth a copyright battle over an arrow? A line? A clever turn of phrase? I'd say pick your battles. There is a difference between what some call the "moral right to be associated with your own work" and having full control over where that work goes. Consider where you would be today if everyone else on the planet had full control over their works and chose to only release those works if you gave them your child, or your kidney, or huge sums of cash.

I'm exaggerating, sure, but you know as well as I do that without freely accessible information, no one would be able to build more information. Unless you haven't been part of society, ever, everything you create is using the intellectual property of other people.

hey, thanks for saying that, Suzanne - I haven't been able to find the words - I suppose it may be of some significance that I am and will almost surely remain someone that doesn't own any copyrights - but a lot of what I've written over the years is stuff that I would indeed hope is part of what allows others to "be able to build more information" - analyses attempting to demonstrate the procyclical (and therefore damaging) impact of US tax policy toward corporate advertising expenditures, reports summarizing Rhode Island state policy regarding the administration of dependency, neglect, and abuse proceedings in Family Court, material advocating an expansion of alcohol and drug treatment programs in prisons - as someone who is attempting to earn a living from language skills, I definitely understand the need to benefit from one's efforts - but we need to recognize that there are "social" or "cultural" claims on intellectual property, just as there are personal ones - the point being, as stated, "everything you create is using the intellectual property of other people"