client wants to copyright my code

[Weedpacket]

Originally posted by davidjam
Secondly, confronting a client AFTER THE FACT when you have been working a certain way for a longish period of time, is very very sticky.

It works the other way around; when you create a work, the copyright is automatically yours (as davidjam has noted) - unless you've made a contractual agreement with the client (or your employer) to hand the copyright to them along with the work. If it's not in the contract, they can't go and demand it after you've done the work.

Of course, since an application may involve work by others, there may well be several copyrightable components (core code, graphical/design work, third-party libraries); it has to be clear just what copyright is to be transferred. That's why so many large software projects end up having several copyright notices attached.

[rhathid]

Copyrighting software is tricky, the entire work would be copyrighted as a whole.

Process A, B, C could all be copyrighted. If the process changed from B,A,C then the copyright would not apply unless the functions within the program were specific to that application and the companies use of it.

Copyrights are easy to get around, just shuffle the code around and if you have to, change a few variable names.

No attorney would not recommend a company copyright something. It's business, they want to charge $150-800/hr to file the paperwork.

Copyrights have been automatic since 1986, and if I remember correctly last 70 years beyond death.

However, an attorney can file a formal copyright with the government (In the US) to formalize the process. This would come in handy during a dispute were two parties both claimed to have rights to the material.

As a side note, if an attorney ever suggests patenting software, don't even consider it. It's even easier to get around and very expensive. Just getting a patent pending costs about $1200 through an attorney. To get a full patent is about $10,000.

So if you ever develop something that you stand to make a lot of money from, the best thing you can do is get it to market ASAP. If you go for a patent which takes about 1 year, somebody else will have already stole your thunder.

Scott

[AstroTeg]

Originally posted by jenni
I have been creating an application for a client on a contract basis. I am not an employee and aside from my biweekly invoices we have nothing in writing. (non-competes, etc.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say from this the client owns the code. You're working for them. They're paying you to produce the code for them. They have the rights to the code. Unless you have documentation that says otherwise.

Originally posted by jenni
My question is...if they copyright it, does that mean that I can never use parts of the code ever again? For example, if I have a clever way for people to log in or whatever, would I be prohibited from using that login code in the future?

I pull parts of my code from other work I've done (be it for a client, work, or personal). Let's say you have a nifty database object that does all sorts of nifty database tricks making your coding life a lot easier. If the client specifically asked for this and only this code to be created, I think you might be a little stuck to use it again. A couple quick tweaks and you might be ok. Although if you're building an application using your nifty object, and don't think its too bad to drop it in another application later on. The object itself runs behind the scenes. For someone to identify you were using it would mean they would have to have access of the code. Does this mean you can safely go and use this object? Tough call.

I know I have snippets of code I used for my personal sites. Then I've implemented it with client sites. Then I implement it with more personal and client sites. And then I make some tweaks and make the code even better. Since they're snippets of code, I don't feel so bad taking them from one site and using it in another (why re-invent the wheel?). But these sites are not out to copy the functionality and business-model of the previous sites. And rarely do they directly compete with each other (if the sites were to directly compete with each other then you get into conflict of interest issues and such).

Originally posted by jenni
I know that a lot of this would depend on the contract, but how do I protect myself? Has anyone here been in this situation?

I'd say a lawyer would give you the best answer.

I had a case where I wrote a collection of C++ DOS apps. I did them on my own time. But the company I was working for really thought they could save a lot of time for their business (and they were designed for their use anyways). Since I did them on my own time with my own resources (my home computer) the apps really belonged to me. Since they wanted to use them, the question was how do they reimburse me for my efforts? The agreement was they would give me overtime for the time spent developing the apps and they'd own the rights. When we agreed upon this, I turned over a floppy with the EXEs and source code. They effectively owned the rights to the program. I couldn't just copy the program and give it to their competitors. But it doesn't mean I don't have the knowledge on how to open a file and read it a particular way, much like the way I did in their program. Since I have that knowledge, I can "recreate" that code (aka: copy/paste if need be). In theory, just by changing the colors and layout of that program, I would have created a new program and a new set of copyrights (although morally I consider this wrong).

I'd recommend checking out the documentation on copyrights and maybe even patents.

[davidjam]

If a client comes to me and wants "a home page graphical website", that is different from wanting "a web application".

If it is a home page site, then the key factor is "how it looks", the overall feel of it. This should be protected so that the company has a unique image on the net. I SHOULDN'T RE-USE THAT GRAPHICAL LOOK FOR ANYONE ELSE.

Now, if they want an application that does something very specific to their needs then the application itself should be protected. I SHOULDN'T USE THAT SPECIFIC-UNIQUE APPLICATION FOR ANYONE ELSE

In both cases the client should own the copyright.

Referring to AstroTegs nifty database sub-application (class) then generally, I think, this would belong to the developer. But if the client specifically said "I want you to design a database application specific to our needs", then the copyright should belong to them.

Copyrights are easy to get around, just shuffle the code around and if you have to, change a few variable names. (by Rathid)

and

I think you might be a little stuck to use it again. A couple quick tweaks and you might be ok. ... just by changing the colors and layout of that program, I would have created a new program and a new set of copyrights (by Astroteg)

I don't think these are true. Remember the two aspects of intellectual property: 1. It's published, and 2. It's Unique. Just changing the variable names or colors does not make the new code unique.

[laserlight]

In both cases the client should own the copyright.

Well, for the "how it looks" part, it probably isnt covered by copyright, but by say, designs.
The code that generated such a design might be covered by copyright, on the other hand.

For the specific application part, you could agree in the contract to hold the copyright, and the client pays for the (exclusive) license.

Just changing the variable names or colors does not make the new code unique.

Chances are, the resulting code will be unique.

But then the problem here is that uniqueness isnt necessary for "intellectual property", a term which probably is a little too wide.
Identical code could well (though highly improbable) have been written independently by different people, and each would hold copyright to his/her own code.

The reason why superficial changes to a program should not mean "a new program and a new set of copyrights" would be that it is a derivative work of the original program.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice/opinion.

[AstroTeg]

Originally posted by davidjam

Referring to AstroTegs nifty database sub-application (class) then generally, I think, this would belong to the developer. But if the client specifically said "I want you to design a database application specific to our needs", then the copyright should belong to them.

Yup, I agree. If its specifically written for them, then its their's (regardless of the impact the code has in the overall application).

Originally posted by davidjam
... Remember the two aspects of intellectual property: 1. It's published, and 2. It's Unique. Just changing the variable names or colors does not make the new code unique.

Here you've introduced a new idea. Intellectual property. This, by itself, I think is a HUGE gray area.

A copyright protects a published work (usually - graphic, design, music, written work). It doesn't protect the idea work expresses. Example:

A photo of a kid.

CNN publishes a photo of a kid in a news story. This doesn't mean no one else can take a picture of a kid (and usually, that same kid CNN has a picture of could have his/her picture taken by someone else). But the specific picture CNN has rights to belongs to CNN (or at least they got permission from someone who owns the rights). This would be copyrights.

I think this can be applied to the coding world (although I'm not a lawyer). I can't just copy a web site or web design. That's copyright infringement. But it doesn't mean I can't put up a forum on my site. Now if the idea of a forum is considered intellectual property and someone owns it and enforces it, then there's a problem (I'd have to get permission from the owner to setup a forum on my site).

So in Jenni's case, copyright may not be as big of an issue as intellectual property rights. I believe those are protected by patents, not copyrights. I would think these would be harder to get and enforce and therefore I wouldn't worry about too much. Although this is something to keep in mind. Reason being: you build a dating site. You have to figure out the algorithm to match people up. Can you take this algorithm with you to another client that wants a dating site? Can you change it enough to make it your own? Either way, we're no longer talking about code but talking about ideas and these get messy.

[davidjam]

for the "how it looks" part, it probably isnt covered by copyright (laserlight)

When I say, "how it looks" I am referring to not only the company logo but colors and other graphical elements. For instance, Symantec uses a dominant yellow theme and other motifs. If another internet security company were to come on-line and use the same shade of yellow and similar motifs, to the extent that viewers would mistakenly think it is Symantec.com or attribute the credibility of symantec to the hijacking company, Symantec could argue that this is copyright infringement (i.e. another internet security company trying to look like symantec to influence sales). This is a real issue on the internet, but more in the field of graphic design than web-development.

if the idea of a forum is considered intellectual property and someone owns it and enforces it,

This reminds me of the guy that patented the intermittant windshield washer and later -- after all the car manufacturers had been using it for years -- demanded (and received) a royalty/license fee (?) for every single intermittent washer out there!

The whole copyright law is really based on common sense, but it requires two things initially: 1. What are the specific needs of the client? Is it the graphical theme, the application as a whole, or a specific programming requirement, or combination of these that is "unique" to them and that they would naturally desire to protect. and 2. Talk about this with the client in the beginning. Be reasonable. Tell them what they can own and what they can't and how much it will cost.

[laserlight]

Symantec could argue that this is copyright infringement (i.e. another internet security company trying to look like symantec to influence sales)

That's a function of trademark, not copyright.

[rhathid]

No, copyrights are easy to get around. I own a business and I have submitted for patents and copyright protection.

If ACME company has a program Elmer wrote for them in 1981 in Business Basic that was designed for ACME and only ACME. Then ACME hires me to write them a program to work with their existing Business Basic, or maybe Cobol program, then I would have a hard time getting around a copyright because my application is proprietary to ACME's needs.

A good example of copyrights being violated is with SCO and Red Hat. That won't even hold up in court unless the code the was used in Linux matches 100%. If you're paying attention to this case, it's going nowhere.

In addition, programming is a langue based on existing functions and syntax so it's hard to copyright something that is already designed to do something.

Now, if you right a class that works with something very specific, for instance, a fedora hat manufacturer, then the copyright would be pretty solid. It would be odd for a class designed to handle the needs of a fedora hat manufacturer to be used elsewhere.

Also, if copyrights were such an issue, then I could write 20 different programs for FedEx, UPS, Amazon.com, Ebay, and any other company that have software development features. After I write all these programs I could file for copyright protection and then sue anybody else who used a program like mine. There are only X amount of ways for a program to work in those environments.

So my answer is YES something can be copyrighted, and NO they are not solid. I can quote the Wall Street Journal, and as long as I switch the words around or maybe use a different word instead of one they used, I can claim it as my own work.

A good code example. Using a while loop instead of a for loop. There, if I was worried about a copyright, I just got around it.

Again, I have had law classes, I have good friends who are contract attornies, I own a business, and I have delt with this stuff. Unless somebody here is a lawyer, I'd say I'm pretty credible.

What should really be discussed is software licensing, not copyrighting.

[laserlight]

In addition, programming is a langue based on existing functions and syntax so it's hard to copyright something that is already designed to do something.

Not really.
For example, a book is based on existing words and grammar, yet its author would hold copyright.
Likewise a computer program may be based on existing functions and syntax, yets its author would hold copyright.

After I write all these programs I could file for copyright protection and then sue anybody else who used a program like mine. There are only X amount of ways for a program to work in those environments.

Um, I think you're confusing copyrights with patents.
Depending on the law, the originality and technological worth of the program, and the existence and proof of prior art, you could file a patent and then sue someone who used a program like yours, but then in the first place software patents are a sticky matter.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice/opinion.

[davidjam]

Now, if you write a class that works with something very specific, for instance, a fedora hat manufacturer, then the copyright would be pretty solid. - by rathid

This is what I have been saying. It is the aspect of: UNIQUE. And this really is a common sense thing.

, a book is based on existing words and grammar, yet its author would hold copyright.- by laserlight

I don't think that words and grammar alone (in the technical sense) comprise a copywriteable work. I think it has to do with something less tangible yet very clear to the common sense like purpose, message and yes, even style. This can also be interpreted in programming as "the approach". How do you get from point a to point b? If you do it in a new and UNIQUE way than there is more of a chance of protecting what you wrote.

Rathid, I am curious about licensing. Please tell us what you know.

[laserlight]

I don't think that words and grammar alone (in the technical sense) comprise a copywriteable work.

The words are used to convey some message, and so, fixed in a tangible form (e.g. on paper), they comprise a work that is automatically copyrighted.

I think it has to do with something less tangible yet very clear to the common sense like purpose, message and yes, even style.

I think that's what distinguishes a particular work from a similiar one.
It doesnt necessarily have to exist in order for copyright protection to apply.

If you do it in a new and UNIQUE way than there is more of a chance of protecting what you wrote.

If you're talking about patents, yes.
If you're talking about copyright, no.
At least in theory, I suppose.

Incidentally, one of the earliest articles I read on this topic would be at whatiscopyright.org, you might want to have a look.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[LordShryku]

Originally posted by laserlight
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

I keep seeing this disclaimer...
Maybe we should get groklaw involved? 😃

[Weedpacket]

Originally posted by LordShryku
I keep seeing this disclaimer...
Maybe we should get groklaw involved? 😃

If it gets said much more often I think we should promulgate the acronym: IANAL.

[laserlight]

Maybe we should get groklaw involved?

Well, our dear groklaw.net owner has to note that too, methinks :p

If it gets said much more often I think we should promulgate the acronym: IANAL.

and TINLA?
I see it quite a bit on opensource.org's mailing list too.