Copyright laws regarding website design?

Im not sure if anyone is able to answer this one, but...

If a client asked for a website to be designed by a website designer/developer, but no formal contract was ever signed or agreed upon then what would the IP/Cpyright laws be regarding modification of that site by a third party? Does the Designer/Developer automatically retain the IP, or does it pass over to the paying client?

wouldnt this be up to the person who pays for the site eg IP and hosting (paying client)...since you have given him the code with no formal recordings then your are handing what you have written over to the client ??? (think thats right)...

The client owns it all, providing he has paid for it all.

The work will remain the property of the designer until paid for in full, however, once paid the client owns the site, IP, designs, graphics etc

Depends on the contract. If you have a contract whereby you agree to sell all copyright to the client, then they will own the copyright. However, you could word the contract so that the client owns the copyright on the content, but the designer retains copyright on the styling/images.

If there is no contract, then the default is whoever created the content retains the copyright.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice

I agree with growse, but if you've taken money for something then I would imagine that you have handed over the rights, or at least some of them. There has obviously been some sort of verbal agreement, where work has been created for money. I'm not sure what the legal standing on that would be.

Yeah, a verbal agreement(And email contact) had been made, but no formal contract was ever discussed or signed. We are in the client position btw, and arn't happy with half the website. The money has been handed over to the developer. The reason I ask this, is im wondering out legal position of getting a third party in to rework the parts of the site we don't like, but keep the bits we do like. As this would invlove reworking code, I need to know who legally owns the IP in this situation.

From Frank Botts - Professional Issues in Information Technology
As the designer you have full copyright ownership unless otherwise specified in an agreement in writing.

"The owner of the copyright can transfer ownership to someone else. This is known as the assignment of the copyright and must be done in writing. In this case, the new owner of the copyright has all the rights that the previous owner had."

gord said:

From Frank Botts - Professional Issues in Information Technology
As the designer you have full copyright ownership unless otherwise specified in an agreement in writing.

"The owner of the copyright can transfer ownership to someone else. This is known as the assignment of the copyright and must be done in writing. In this case, the new owner of the copyright has all the rights that the previous owner had."

Click to expand...

Just what im after, thanks. Not in our favour though.

messiah khan said:

Yeah, a verbal agreement(And email contact) had been made, but no formal contract was ever discussed or signed. We are in the client position btw, and arn't happy with half the website. The money has been handed over to the developer. The reason I ask this, is im wondering out legal position of getting a third party in to rework the parts of the site we don't like, but keep the bits we do like. As this would invlove reworking code, I need to know who legally owns the IP in this situation.

Click to expand...

I dont know about the email as a written contract, im not a lawyer just a second year Information Tech in Organisations student. (My lawyer student housemate says the email wont suffice, you need to have a written contract with both parties signed)

AFAIK it really wasn't written as a contract or includes any details that should be in a contract, more like "Can you make a website for us" "ok, i'll do it ASAP" kind of thing.

They paid for the designer's skills in creating the site. They didn't pay for the copyright. If they did, this would be explicitly written down and signed by all parties. It isn't, so the designer retains the copyright.

Thats fair enough. But where do we stand on modifying and adding to his code etc?

messiah khan said:

Thats fair enough. But where do we stand on modifying and adding to his code etc?

Click to expand...

From the same source as before.

"The customer must take into account the long-term need for maintenanance and ensure that they have the right, for example, to give another contractor access to the source code and documentation"

Therefore, i can only infer that if you dont have the copyright to such information handing it out to another party could be illegal.

Cheers guys. What is this source Gord? Is it a book you've got? Doesn't look like were in a good position then. The way things are looking, I think a whole new site might be the best way forward.

Yes. Its actually one of my current modules. Legal, Ethical and Professional Issues in Information Technology.

The core textbook is from the British Computer Society - Professional Issues in IT by Frank Bott (2005)

And from what i understand it does sound like your in a pickle. Hope you get it sorted chap.

gord said:

I dont know about the email as a written contract, im not a lawyer just a second year Information Tech in Organisations student. (My lawyer student housemate says the email wont suffice, you need to have a written contract with both parties signed)

Click to expand...

Your law student housemate needs to brush up, then. An equitable assigment of copyright does not need to be in writing - an oral contract is sufficient, or even a contract implied by conduct, let alone email. This principle has been court-tested numerous times, including in the Court of Appeal.

However, unless a formal written contract exists with clear, unequivocal assignment, it's going to be up to a court to determine the intent of the parties, and that's likely to be an expensive process in the best case. I think it was Sam Goldyn (of MGM fame) who famously quipped "An oral contract isn't the worth the paper it's written on", and that about sums it up. A written contract may not be mandatory, but it sure as hell is a good idea.

As for where copyright lies, gord got it right - in the general case, it lies with the creator, unless either assigned by contract, or where the creator was an employee rather than freelance. Note also that what constitutes "employee" isn't quite as straightforward as it may seem.