Development – Who gets the dosh?
Permalink
If a company pays a developer to develop an addon for Concrete 5, who has the rights over the addon if it was submitted to the marketplace?
I would like to get a CRM addon developed and I was told recently that the developer owns the the addon after being developed despite being payed to develop it. I have no beef about this apart from wondering how or why any company would want to stump up the dosh yet have no ownership.
It doesn't work like that in most other businesses. A designer, once paid, doesn't own the rights to a logo or otherwise.
Whats the answer here?
Nigel
I would like to get a CRM addon developed and I was told recently that the developer owns the the addon after being developed despite being payed to develop it. I have no beef about this apart from wondering how or why any company would want to stump up the dosh yet have no ownership.
It doesn't work like that in most other businesses. A designer, once paid, doesn't own the rights to a logo or otherwise.
Whats the answer here?
Nigel
I think that if the project proposed from client will be one with potencial to featured the MP you should inform the client about it.
Then you have 2 options in your hand 1 you can charge your fee for the add-on and add it to the mp, if the client wants to keep source closed then charge in for it.
I do this when I have a request for an add-on in the real world.
Most clients will opt for the add-on licence per site.
Usually leaves me with the options of add it to mp or not.
Paulo
Then you have 2 options in your hand 1 you can charge your fee for the add-on and add it to the mp, if the client wants to keep source closed then charge in for it.
I do this when I have a request for an add-on in the real world.
Most clients will opt for the add-on licence per site.
Usually leaves me with the options of add it to mp or not.
Paulo
OK two different responses there. In most businesses if you pay a subcontractor for work done you own the work and have the right to do with it as you wish, sell it even.
In what cases does the developer own the app (in this case) even after being contracted to make it and paid to make it.
The other issue of course is supporting the addon, updating it etc.
Any developers out there?
Nige
In what cases does the developer own the app (in this case) even after being contracted to make it and paid to make it.
The other issue of course is supporting the addon, updating it etc.
Any developers out there?
Nige
I'd say you should make sure the contract between the company and the developer(s) covers all possibilities and are beneficial for both parties.
I agree with that, and its pretty much what I do anyway!
That's a legal issue for you to figure out with your clients. Any solid software services contract should cover these ownership issues in detail.
In general, typically the developer owns their code and the client is licensed their copy. Think of it this way: if everything you write as a developer is fully owned by the client, you'd never be able to reuse a line of code in life without stealing from your last client. Since every programmer I've met tends to keep a library of approaches around and whatnot, that's just not going to fly.
The idea of work for hire comes more from the media/hollywood side of things - where the creative you develop is really unique and can be fully owned by the client without impacting your ability to make money in the future. IE: the script for some sitcom has nothing to do with the script you'll write for the next sitcom.
In terms of practicals in the marketplace? Providing great support is absolutely critical to being a successful marketplace developer here. Generally some entrepreneur who pays a freelance developer to make an add-on and then wants to submit it here to get rich is not going to be in a position to provide support. Support needs to happen quickly and unless you wrote the thing or have someone actually on staff who wrote it, it's difficult for me to believe you'd be able to provide any meaningful support at all.
So while I can see in the abstract it makes sense that if you pay for something it's yours, in this case, generally, if you pay a developer to make something you have to expect they'll own their copy and you'll have an unlimited license to use your license for whatever you want.
That being said, you should absolutely have this stuff covered in a contract as we're talking to people in many different countries and if you have to take a problem like this to court there's no guarantee they'd agree with the standards here in the US I outlined above. Write it up.
In general, typically the developer owns their code and the client is licensed their copy. Think of it this way: if everything you write as a developer is fully owned by the client, you'd never be able to reuse a line of code in life without stealing from your last client. Since every programmer I've met tends to keep a library of approaches around and whatnot, that's just not going to fly.
The idea of work for hire comes more from the media/hollywood side of things - where the creative you develop is really unique and can be fully owned by the client without impacting your ability to make money in the future. IE: the script for some sitcom has nothing to do with the script you'll write for the next sitcom.
In terms of practicals in the marketplace? Providing great support is absolutely critical to being a successful marketplace developer here. Generally some entrepreneur who pays a freelance developer to make an add-on and then wants to submit it here to get rich is not going to be in a position to provide support. Support needs to happen quickly and unless you wrote the thing or have someone actually on staff who wrote it, it's difficult for me to believe you'd be able to provide any meaningful support at all.
So while I can see in the abstract it makes sense that if you pay for something it's yours, in this case, generally, if you pay a developer to make something you have to expect they'll own their copy and you'll have an unlimited license to use your license for whatever you want.
That being said, you should absolutely have this stuff covered in a contract as we're talking to people in many different countries and if you have to take a problem like this to court there's no guarantee they'd agree with the standards here in the US I outlined above. Write it up.
Yep all good, I think Frz is spot on and was thinking the same, particularly the support issue, nothing worse than an unsupported addon.
Thanks for all the clarification. I think paying for it and so getting unlimited license for it is fair.
Nige
Thanks for all the clarification. I think paying for it and so getting unlimited license for it is fair.
Nige
nige - what you're describing is often referred to as "work for hire" and is just one type of agreement between client and provider. My understanding is that, by law, creators retain rights/ownership of their creations until they sign them away in whole or part in a legal agreement. Designers often grant timed usage rights to logos, etc while retaining the copyright.
The more rights that are transferred, the higher the price. So in looking to get something made (a design, photograph, c5 package, or whatever), there might be a range of fees depending on who owns the rights to reuse/sell it once the project is completed. There's lots of room for negotiating the details.
Good luck!
The more rights that are transferred, the higher the price. So in looking to get something made (a design, photograph, c5 package, or whatever), there might be a range of fees depending on who owns the rights to reuse/sell it once the project is completed. There's lots of room for negotiating the details.
Good luck!
The company, however, should be able to upload it to the marketplace.
But that is just my interpretation...