All this over a 30$ Job and I don't even know who wants to sue me.

[Fatbat]

I say bullshit to those who think he's done something wrong.

The middleman paid $30 bucks for a bit of script without any exclusivity agreement in place. Every coder I know has an arsenal of scripts in their library and unless they are hired to produce something custom and exclusive they turn to those resources time and time again. Hence the fact that it was only $30 and not $3,000 with a big ol' contract tied to it.

You know most designers will hand over logos, PSDs, Indesign/Quark layouts, etc. and won't ever make a stink about what you do with them after the fact, but the truth is, unless you've negotiated exclusive ownership of design work the designer owns everything and can come back on you every time you use it for additional fees. This is why big agencies won't turn over original files unless you as the client negotiate and pay for them, usually up to three times or more the original work price. Every time you want to make an edit to your brochure, or print another 10,000 copies, or distribute them in another region, or whatever, you end up paying for it.

Without a deal in place these guys don't have a leg to stand on and Karl hasn't done anything wrong. Without a "work for hire" agreement stating clearly who owns the rights to the work in question there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

It's pretty simple really.

If you want to read more about this stuff then check out the GAG's Pricing and Ethical Guidelines book that comes out ever year. Scope their website... Graphic Artists Guild - Negotiate That Contract

read a bit more here...

Intellectual Property: What does "Work for Hire" mean for designers? — AIGA | the professional association for design

Keep in mind I am looking at this from a designer's point of view because that is what I know and I'm not a programmer. Intellectual property rights are pretty universal though.

 

[snickers]

You can own a script. You can't own a method.

If you had even slightly altered the version he recieved = New product. Looks like he didn't even buy a product, but a service. So tell him to zip it.

Plus, the whole "Work For Hire" deal he ^ alluded to.

The real point of discussion: why are you airing both yours and his business in public?

Bad business, bad manners. He may be acting foolish... but need you act the same?

 

[globefrog]

this

I say bullshit to those who think he's done something wrong.

The middleman paid $30 bucks for a bit of script without any exclusivity agreement in place. Every coder I know has an arsenal of scripts in their library and unless they are hired to produce something custom and exclusive they turn to those resources time and time again. Hence the fact that it was only $30 and not $3,000 with a big ol' contract tied to it.

You know most designers will hand over logos, PSDs, Indesign/Quark layouts, etc. and won't ever make a stink about what you do with them after the fact, but the truth is, unless you've negotiated exclusive ownership of design work the designer owns everything and can come back on you every time you use it for additional fees. This is why big agencies won't turn over original files unless you as the client negotiate and pay for them, usually up to three times or more the original work price. Every time you want to make an edit to your brochure, or print another 10,000 copies, or distribute them in another region, or whatever, you end up paying for it.

Without a deal in place these guys don't have a leg to stand on and Karl hasn't done anything wrong. Without a "work for hire" agreement stating clearly who owns the rights to the work in question there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

It's pretty simple really.

If you want to read more about this stuff then check out the GAG's Pricing and Ethical Guidelines book that comes out ever year. Scope their website... Graphic Artists Guild - Negotiate That Contract

read a bit more here...

Intellectual Property: What does "Work for Hire" mean for designers? — AIGA | the professional association for design

Keep in mind I am looking at this from a designer's point of view because that is what I know and I'm not a programmer. Intellectual property rights are pretty universal though.

I agree hardcore.

If you want exclusivity and the work is of such importance take the time to clarify and exercise due diligence, not cheapskate a seemingly important solution.

 

[conv3rsion]

this is why i dont work work with clients anymore. Think about all the time you are now spending on this bullshit. think about all the time you have to spend educating the client on the nuances of every deal. Even if things are 1000% clear, they can still sue you, they just can't win, but it takes time and money in the meantime.

Not saying you can't get sued without clients, but having to deal with stupid shit like this is the whole reason i stopped coding for clients and became an affiliate marketer.

 

[Refrozen]

You have no right to be selling this. You developed it under contract for him. It, and any derivative products, are his.

If you had even slightly altered the version he recieved = New product. Looks like he didn't even buy a product, but a service. So tell him to zip it.

What the fuck? Either he has the rights to it period, or (the truth, likely) he doesn't have the rights to it whether he "alters it slightly" or not. You have no idea what you're talking about

That's all, that's it, if they want exclusive rights to my ability to use environment variables and a single javascript line of code, they are going to have to pay a hell of a lot more than 30$, the fact of the matter is, I even mentioned selling it to the original guy I was working with. I had absolutely no communication, and still have no communication with the guy threatening legal action.

That's a fair argument assuming you rewrote the script entirely AND assuming there's not any implicit control over the "concept." You are selling his concept and even without a NDA, I'd say you were expected to keep it quiet.

For example, I had a potential client (from here) come to me yesterday and ask me if I could develop a project for him. It was a simple concept ("if X == 1, do Y; if X !== 1, do Z" more/less). If I turned around today and released a product that did exactly that, I'd be in the wrong: morally, if nothing else.

 

[kblessinggr]

You can own a script. You can't own a method.

If you had even slightly altered the version he recieved = New product. Looks like he didn't even buy a product, but a service. So tell him to zip it.

Plus, the whole "Work For Hire" deal he ^ alluded to.

The real point of discussion: why are you airing both yours and his business in public?

Bad business, bad manners. He may be acting foolish... but need you act the same?

The script LPProtect, was re-written from scratch, based on the same concept as what I wrote him. What he got was an unencoded php source, I spent the time to train him on how to use it, how he could change the code, asked if anything else he wanted done to it. The script LPProtect was a new concotion that happens to do the same thing, but with more robust code, and maybe 90% of it's placement moved around (there's not much you can change on a script as simple as that before its considered overhauled). Basically re-created to tailor to dummy proof it for buyers so they won't require a couple hours in a day for me to show em how to use it, and what does what.

 

[snickers]

The script LPProtect, was re-written from scratch, based on the same concept as what I wrote him. What he got was an unencoded php source, I spent the time to train him on how to use it, how he could change the code, asked if anything else he wanted done to it. The script LPProtect was a new concotion that happens to do the same thing, but with more robust code, and maybe 90% of it's placement moved around (there's not much you can change on a script as simple as that before its considered overhauled). Basically re-created to tailor to dummy proof it for buyers so they won't require a couple hours in a day for me to show em how to use it, and what does what.

Yeah, you gave him a different product to what you sold elsewhere. I get it. I agreed with you. Just not on the airing of your dirty laundry!

 

[Fatbat]

You have no right to be selling this. You developed it under contract for him. It, and any derivative products, are his.

There was no contract in place. The client owns nothing.

 

[stmadeveloper]

I didn't read all of this thread, but I've been developing scripts and tools for both myself and "clients" for years. What I did read was a bunch of folks way off base.

If I develop a website for you and you don't pay out the rear - I owe it. You bought the rights to it. You come to me and say I need a way to protect my landing pages.... I'll code it for you, but it's my code and I can do as I damn well please with it.

If you want a design, code, graphic, webpage, script, etc... to be "OWNED" by you after you pay for it you need to ask for that up front, get a contract, etc...

It's not "WRONG" -- it's just how things work.

BTW - go to a "photo" website and see how much more you pay to use an image in print or to buy the rights to it. It's a HUGE difference that doesn't equate with 30 bucks

 

[Rage9]

You have no right to be selling this. You developed it under contract for him. It, and any derivative products, are his.

What contract?

What the fuck? Either he has the rights to it period, or (the truth, likely) he doesn't have the rights to it whether he "alters it slightly" or not. You have no idea what you're talking about

So your theory is you could never write a similar [or exact] piece of code you have ever wrote for a client ever again, sorry doesn't work like that. You know most coders keep archives of code they have wrote to use in future projects right? It's called code reuse, makes our job easier by not reinventing the wheel all the fucking time.

..You are selling his concept and even without a NDA, I'd say you were expected to keep it quiet.

Meh, this was a $30 cheapo project. This isn't anything ground shattering, or anything complicated. Get real.

For example, I had a potential client (from here) come to me yesterday and ask me if I could develop a project for him. It was a simple concept ("if X == 1, do Y; if X !== 1, do Z" more/less). If I turned around today and released a product that did exactly that, I'd be in the wrong: morally, if nothing else.

Maybe, depends of the situation. If you agreed to not turn around and sell it, and where paid well because of that, then yes it would be morally wrong.

It's a very sticky slope and a really why it's so critical to have very clear communication on both sides. It may not be pretty but no one has admitted any kind of deal to not resell the code.

 

[Refrozen]

There was no contract in place. The client owns nothing.

There's a good chance you're right, legally. Although there's certainly an implicit contract in place, whether that contract guarantees exclusivity of any sort of the code you write is probably highly questionable given the complexity of the issue.

So your theory is you could never write a similar [or exact] piece of code you have ever wrote for a client ever again, sorry doesn't work like that. You know most coders keep archives of code they have wrote to use in future projects right? It's called code reuse, makes our job easier by not reinventing the wheel all the fucking time.

My "theory" was simply that of derivative works. Generally, when I do a large project I negotiate to have one file called my-library.whatever which I explicitly tell the client they have license to use, but absolutely no rights over whatsoever. That's where my code reuse goes.

The fact this is a small project with little real value probably means that you're right, there's nothing/little/maybe legally wrong with this. Ethically though? Fuck that.

I take the side of the client in this sort of thing to avoid messes / keep everyone happy. Period.

 

[justo_tx]

The script LPProtect, was re-written from scratch, based on the same concept as what I wrote him.

I hope you tell whoever is threatening a lawsuit to shove it up their ass. Software consulting as a business would not exist if the first time a programmer wrote a function to read or write from a database they were prohibited from doing so again in their next project. I would think rewriting the code is a good way to CYA. And if the ownership of the IP wasn't agreed upon before hand they wouldn't seem to have much of a case to be made.

 

[bb_wolfe]

It's hard to believe the disparity of positions in this thread.

Quite simply, if I found he was doing this to me and he was local, it wouldn't be hard to file a report with the local sheriffs office and see if the states atty would pick it up as a crime of whatever caliber.

Karl is most certainly in the wrong and the fact that a 'so called' experienced programmer would even consider selling code he was paid to write, no matter how easy-peasy simple it was for him to write, calls into question the integrity of EVERY script he's ever written.

Any good programmer knows, that in addition to having your head smashed in, being sued, and never being able to attend the same events as their customers do now or in the future, the simple stain on the developers reputation will KILL his business if they are sneaky fucks and resell paid-for software/scripts.

Re: due diligence... There are basic ethics that exist in our industry and following the letter of the contract isn't one of them unless the dollar amount is high. I had a dispute last week with a WF member and I think he was mostly wrong, but I'm not gonna mess with it because fighting the issue is more expensive financially and reputation-wise than just making things right per his request. Better to take it in the ass for something you had no control of versus killing your reputation to prove a fucking point. It's not worth ruining a friendship/mutual respect for relatively small amounts of money.

Look at Karl now, do you really think anyone is going to want to pay him for software at this point? Why take the risk of it showing up on some BST section.

For those of you who say he had the rights to sell it, are you fucking kidding me?

 

[justo_tx]

It's hard to believe the disparity of positions in this thread.

Quite simply, if I found he was doing this to me and he was local, it wouldn't be hard to file a report with the local sheriffs office and see if the states atty would pick it up as a crime of whatever caliber.

Karl is most certainly in the wrong and the fact that a 'so called' experienced programmer would even consider selling code he was paid to write, no matter how easy-peasy simple it was for him to write, calls into question the integrity of EVERY script he's ever written.

Any good programmer knows, that in addition to having your head smashed in, being sued, and never being able to attend the same events as their customers do now or in the future, the simple stain on the developers reputation will KILL his business if they are sneaky fucks and resell paid-for software/scripts.

Re: due diligence... There are basic ethics that exist in our industry and following the letter of the contract isn't one of them unless the dollar amount is high. I had a dispute last week with a WF member and I think he was mostly wrong, but I'm not gonna mess with it because fighting the issue is more expensive financially and reputation-wise than just making things right per his request. Better to take it in the ass for something you had no control of versus killing your reputation to prove a fucking point. It's not worth ruining a friendship/mutual respect for relatively small amounts of money.

Look at Karl now, do you really think anyone is going to want to pay him for software at this point? Why take the risk of it showing up on some BST section.

For those of you who say he had the rights to sell it, are you fucking kidding me?

For 30 fucking dollars Karl's client should have not illusions of exclusivity if they know the first thing about software (and a one line script is about the loosest definition of software that can be applied.)

Secondly, most modern programmers utilize pre-existing libraries, and program towards patterns, reusing the same conventions over and over again because they are tested and well known. If every time I started a new project I had to come up with a new and unique way to do user authentication as opposed to utilizing a piece of common code that I had used before I would have run out of possibilities a few years ago. Modern software development is based on reuse.

 

[Refrozen]

Secondly, most modern programmers utilize pre-existing libraries, and program towards patterns, reusing the same conventions over and over again because they are tested and well known. If every time I started a new project I had to come up with a new and unique way to do user authentication as opposed to utilizing a piece of common code that I had used before I would have run out of possibilities a few years ago. Modern software development is based on reuse.

Right, and if every time Shakespeare went to write a play he had to devise a new language, he'd be out of languages pretty quick. Are you really daft enough that you don't see the difference between using a library and selling the exact product someone just [strike]implicitly contracted[/strike] hired you to write?

 

[justo_tx]

Right, and if every time Shakespeare went to write a play he had to devise a new language, he'd be out of languages pretty quick. Are you really daft enough that you don't see the difference between using a library and selling the exact product someone just [strike]implicitly contracted[/strike] hired you to write?

So customer pays me to write a task list application, a user has a list of task and can add and remove them. I then go so far as to rewrite the application again and I still can't sell it just because I've done it before for somebody else?

 

[vacuum]

If you're interested in what the law has to say about it, take a look here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Karl was not a salaried employee, and there was no written contract or agreement, therefore this does not qualify as what is legally known as a "work for hire". Therefore, Karl is the legal owner of the work.

To anyone making the argument against Karl, I suggest reading the above document.

A couple of things are getting lost here:

1) Does the sale of the script somehow do harm to anyone? It doesn't sound like it. It doesn't sound like there is a breach of privacy and Karl hasn't told anybody they can no longer use the script.

2) The work was $30 for goodness' sake! It's obviously just a little piece of code.

 

[Refrozen]

So customer pays me to write a task list application, a user has a list of task and can add and remove them. I then go so far as to rewrite the application again and I still can't sell it just because I've done it before for somebody else?

If you wrote it again, legally you're almost certainly fine. Morally, I think you're a dink. Its not something I'd do to one of my regular clients - as a freelancer, I am an asset to them, not a risk.

And for the record, Karl, it sounds like the guy who is freaking out isn't one you should have issue with. You have never engaged in business with him which LIKELY means that the intermediary is your risk-holder.

IANAL. Just got law-school friends and its a subject that interests me. Nothing here is legal advice, of course.

 

[Skippy McGee]

The creator of any work automatically possesses the copyright unless ownership is specified in the contract or explicitly transferred.

According to copyright.gov, in the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as: 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as: (I'm removing the several examples) if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."

We know he wasn't an employee and it doesn't sound like there was a contract expressly agreeing that JohnnyPal would assume copyright.

 

[Rage9]

The fact this is a small project with little real value probably means that you're right, there's nothing/little/maybe legally wrong with this. Ethically though? Fuck that.

Agreed 100%, nothing legally wrong.

For those of you who say he had the rights to sell it, are you fucking kidding me?

I think the argument is more it's not illegal to do, especially at such a small dollar amount. Ethically, I think the overview is quite different.