Hypocrite - DPChallenge Forums

01/06/2006 04:16:14 PM · #51

Originally posted by theSaj:

Let me put it simply: as a programmer...

If someone pays me to make them a website, who owns it? me or them?

If you pay me to make you a website who own's the rights to the website? you or me?

Which way do you think the courts will decide?

All this stupidity of saying "it's the law stupid"...guess what, there are so many laws they overlap, they conflict, they get judiciously applied on a case by case basis. To deny such is more idiot than saying I'm denying it. I am just point out questionable circumstances that could make a determination in this case were it to go to court.

- Saj

Once again you demonstrate a bizarre mixture of criticising the law for perceived but non-existent failings based on a misunderstanding of the current position while making recommendations that have already been implemented.

People can contract to do whatever they want. The default position is generally that the creator of IP retains the rights to that IP. If the creator is contracted to provide work containing IP, he retains the IP unless the parties agree otherwise. If a person creates the IP in the course of his employment, the employer is treated as the creator (unless they agree otherwise).

The law in this area is reasonably settled, and there is no significant overlapping & contradictory law. People set charging rates in accordance with the settled law in the expectation that it will be applied, or agree otherwise.

You are confusing "the law" with its application and interpretation. It often must be interpreted in the face of complex and infinitely variable fact patterns. Law can be applied unevenly, although in common law countries the principle of precedent applies to create as even and consistent application as possible. Your massive over simplification of the issues, however, leads you to believe that the application of more than one legal principle at the same time is evidence of confusion, rather than sophistication.

There is a further aspect: IP rights protect the moral rights of the creator. These are that the work should be attributed to him in an unaltered state, that other work should not be attributed to him. Cheap copies are in breach of the creator's moral rights to have his work protected.

Lastly, why must you attribute a value judgment in a situation where there is none to make? It could just as easily be a miserly and conniving rich old lady who has negotiated that the photographer should receive no money for his time on the basis that she will pay handsomely for prints and the struggling young photographer with a young family to feed.

Jmsetzler really ought to approach the matter by discussion with his employer: taking a "self help" approach by contacting the other photographer would probably be grounds for dismissal regardless, not to mention reckless given his lack of knowledge of his employer's reasons and/or further knowledge.

01/06/2006 04:27:29 PM · #52

Originally posted by theSaj:

If someone pays me to make them a website, who owns it? me or them?

If you pay me to make you a website who own's the rights to the website? you or me?

Which way do you think the courts will decide?

And to answer your question: it will depend on what you have agreed with the person asking you to do the designing. If you agree nothing specifically, your agreement may be inferred from your/their actions. If no agreement can be inferred to the contrary, the default position is that the coyright to the code will rest with you, but you will have granted a licence to the web site operator to use your code for the purpose of operating their web site, subject to any standard provisions that are necessary for the normal operation of the web site. That may include updating your code where necessary. The rights to operate the website would be retained by the website operator, and you could not operate his website for him, for example.

In short: the website owner owns the website; you own your code; the website owner can use your code on his website.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/06/2006 04:37:58 PM · #53

The US concept of work for hire appears to broadly reflect UK employer rights. It is created to ensure that businesses can retain IP (which will often constitute their business) rather than automatically giving it to their customers. The distinction must be made between a business employing people to create work (the IP must usually remain with the business, not the transient employees), and contracting with a third party business (that business supplying the IP must usually retain the IP rights).

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

01/06/2006 04:49:22 PM · #54

"If you agree nothing specifically, your agreement may be inferred from your/their actions."

Very true....that would likely have to be determined by a court of law.

"In short: the website owner owns the website; you own your code; the website owner can use your code on his website."

Yes, that is the common understanding.

"The US concept of work for hire appears to broadly reflect UK employer rights. It is created to ensure that businesses can retain IP (which will often constitute their business) rather than automatically giving it to their customers."

For the most part yes, thought it blurrs. In fact, RIAA at one point tried to declare all the music property of the labels and not the artists on the basis of being works-for-hire. They lost, because the courts deemed that since the cost of making the recording was billed back to the artist it was not a work for hire. That would have just been raw evil had they won.

But no one has seen the contract said individual signed. And I am sure the original poster of this thread has "ran a red light or driven over the legally posted speedlimit". I sincerely doubt that he in turn went to the town who's ordinances he had violated and offered to pay the standard fine or turn himself in.

So when somone posts that they have a moral dilemma of conscience on a matter like this....well, hypocrite...damn straight.

"Man, always has a tendency to like the laws that benefits him but has great distaste for those that oppose him." - Saj

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/06/2006 04:54:15 PM · #55

Hey John: I agree with you that this incident has left you in a catch22.
One grows more angry not at the breaking of the law per se but at the corrupt moral behaviour. Some people do decide to be at peace with their conscience to behave in a fair manner. Others do not share this belief because unlike the fair minded, these people are able to turn the other way and then get a good night sleep.

The fact of using illegal software tells a lot of his nature. The very fact that he is a professional should prompt him to pay for the very tools he uses in his profession.

You can not turn the world around because your interference to set this incident straight will not solve the problem. I would not feel too much guilt or more, disatisfaction because you are being used. The final objective would be to find a better person, but all is easier said then done, hence the catch22. Good luck!

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 00:02:39.