Re: Copyright notice

Hi Lauri,

I would have to say that you should go with whatever method is best suited
to you and your clients.

Here's why: Some people will likely say that copyright should be given
completely to the client. Since they have paid for the site, they should
have ownership of all that makes up the site, including the layout, any
specialized code, etc. Others say that some portions of the site are
reusable in other sites, therefore the designer should keep the copyright on
those portions.

That's the basics; the details can be much more complicated.

I choose to maintain copyright to some portions of my clients' sites. Those
portions include reusable code such as a Calendar of Events, Forums,
rollover techniques, basic interface layout, etc. The reason is that in most
cases, these codes were built first for sites owned by my company, and then
modified slightly to work on clients' sites. Other times, extensive codework
is created to solve a specific problem for a site that we are doing for a
friend (this kind of site is used as a testbed of sorts, and to show off
what we are capable of). Case-in-point: we are currently working on a site
that will contain a number of copyrighted images. For visitors to gain
access to these images, they must pay the site owner a subscription fee
(it's an online magazine). Now, if the images were stored as they typically
would be, someone might figure out what the directory structure is and gain
access to images they do not have a subscription to. So we've placed the
images in a directory outside of the webserver structure. To display these
images in a browser, however, we have to use some intermediary custom
scripts and components to read the file from the "hidden" directory directly
to the browser. The result is that people who have the rights to these
images get them, but they can't just put a direct path into their browser to
gain access to images they don't have a subscription to. This code can be
used later on on a different site, so long as we maintain copyright to it.

In the example above, if we needed to "hide" data on another site but gave
the copyright to the scripts to the site owner above, we'd have to figure
out some other method that worked similar to, but not exactly the same as
what we'd previously written. This would take time, and would cause this
other site's price to go up. By reusing code we designed and own, we can
keep the costs down, and still give the desired functionality.

Another example is that we are currently building an e-commerce site for
another (paying) client. The code, however, is being taken from one of our
own sites, and given a facelift to match their desired color schemes and
interface choice. The interface is being designed in a similar manner to a
third site we've built. If we didn't maintain copyright on certain aspects
of these sites, we'd not be able to "cut-and-paste" a site for this client
as quickly or as cheaply as we are doing.

When we place a copyright on the sites we build, it states briefly that the
site owner has copyright to the data and images presented, but that my
company maintains copyright on the programming and layout. We explain
verbally and in writing to the client what this entails, and it boils down
to the fact that while Client X has all the rights to the data they have
displayed on the site, we can use the interface design, the code that makes
the interface work, and any additional code (such as the Calendar code) on
any other sites we build as we see fit. We've not had any complaints with
this choice, and in fact, have three sites with the same interface structure
(even though they have different color and font choices), and six sites with
the same calendar. Everyone is happy. And by reusing the code we spent so
much time building in the first place, our costs in time and to the client
are greatly reduced.

The disadvantages to keeping copyright to some of the code is that we cannot
in good faith charge as much as other designers for a similar site (we
didn't have to work as hard at building the site), and there is the fact
that some of our sites have a certain similar "look" to them because we
reuse basic layout templates.

The advantages are a quicker turn-around for our clients (which makes them
happy), less cost to the client (which REALLY makes them happy), and less
work for us (we just take this module from site A and plug it into site B,
making a couple modifications here or there).

Like I said at the beginning, it's comes down to what you are comfortable
with. If you spend a lot of time designing a really nice interface for a
client, and give them full copyright to everything you did for their site,
you couldn't go and modify that interface for another client or yourself
without infringing on your first client's copyright. By maintaining the
copyright of the interface for yourself, but giving them copyright to the
actual graphics used in the interface, while you'd have to make changes, you
could reuse the look and technology behind the interface in another site.

I'm sure Mr. Hoffman could provide a better understanding of all the legal
ramifications of copyright law and infringement since he is a lawyer and I'm
not. In fact, I may be way off in my understanding of the law. But the basic
idea I've described above has pleased all of our clients and our lawyer
sufficiently that there's little chance we could get into trouble by reusing
the code we write for one site on another site, so long as that code remains
our intellectual property.

Oh yes, while we've not had this happen yet, we also stipulate that since we
maintain copyright on the "behind-the-scenes" programming and functionality
of the sites we build, if a client were to decide they no longer wanted our
services, they would have three months from the date they end our
relationship to have their site fully redesigned with new scripts and
programming to avoid infringing on OUR copyrights (although they can still
use the graphics we designed for them, they'd have to be rescripted from
scratch by their new designers). While I hope we never have to face this
possibility, our lawyer asserts that our contract does favor us in this
regard, should we have to bring legal action.

I hope this helps you in your question!
Kehvan M. Zydhek


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lauri V�in" <optima(at)hot.ee>
To: "HWG Business" <hwg-business(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 1:06 PM
Subject: Copyright notice


> Hello list members,
> I noticed a thing the other day while browsing the web.
> The copyright notice sometimes says that the copyright belongs to the
> designer, other times the copyright notice says that the copyright
> belongs to the client of the designer (the one who ordered the design
> service).
>
> Which is the way to go. Should the copyright be owned by me or my
> client? Benefits and downsides of both?
>
> Thanks in advance :-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Lauri V�in
> --
> Lauri V�in
> Your own .com .net .org domain name is the best
> advertisement on the net. Click below to see if
> your domain name is still available and register it!
> http://www.virtualis.com/vr/lvin/domain_search.html
>
>
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-business mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA