Would my employer own a game I made in my own time?

[Reezer]

A few friends and I have an idea for a simple iPhone game and are planning to develop it fairly soon.

There is a clause in our contracts (we all work for the same company) that states all ideas/copyrightable works/technical know how we come up with whilst working for the company is owned by the company. It also states that we will do anything required, at the companies cost, to transfer ownership of all works, related or otherwise, to the company.

I understand this is fully necessary so that we can't sue the company for something we do for them after they make millions selling it but don't think it seems fair/enforceable for ideas unrelated to the companies business. For example, by the word of the contract, if I composed a song during my own time and sold it, my tech company could claim ownership of it.

In my real example, the difference isn't as great as for music, but we are developing a game for iPhone and my company are only interested in IT services for massive organizations and governments. Sure, software is software, but they would never release a game...

So, my question is this, is a catch all clause that couldn't actually be enforced in my scenario or is it binding to the letter?

If it's cut and dry and the employer would always win if they decided to enforce it we will likely seek written permission for an exemption for the field of games before releasing. If they decline and we still want to do it, one or even all of us, would have to consider taking a career break or resigning before developing/releasing.

I found lots of information on this for various states in the US but didn't find anything relevant to the UK.

Any advice/suggestions/links to relevant material would be much appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Mason-]

As long as you are doing it without their resources surely you own it.

Basically means you can't have your own little company going in the background.

And if they don't find out.. they can't claim to it.

 

[Glaucus]

Employer, just talk to hr/manager and get them to sign something giving you permission to do it and own the rights. Same thing happens at university, theirs been a few well documented cases in the media. It's to stop people using the works knowledge and training to create programs and take the companies business away. Even if you make it at home in your own time, the ideas and knowledge can still be from work. Which is why they put a clause in saying they will own it.


My understanding was it's usually related work, rather than any, so if you are computer programer, any computer software would be theirs, where a song would be yours.

Could always ask cab or a solicitor, but pretty sure you'll find the company would own it, but if it isn't related to work, I don't see why they would not agree to releasing the rights to you.

 

[AGD]

As above, if it is in your own time and you don't use any software/code or any other resource from work then it is fine.

 

[semi-pro waster]

As long as you are doing it without their resources surely you own it.

Not necessarily, as AcidHell2 says it may be that the idea came during work time or that the contacts came via work - proving that it has nothing to do with your work may be somewhat difficult.

However with that said the clause would have to be viewed as reasonable which depends on a variety of things including (but not limited to) what the company you work for does (e.g. if it's a field unrelated then they'll struggle to prove reasonableness for owning anything you do), whether you've done it outwith the companies time/resources, whether you're neglecting your work responsibilities, what the scope of the clause is etc.

I'd suggest talking to a lawyer who specialises in IP law if you want to be reasonably sure of your grounding in such matters.

 

[Energize]

If it's in your own time then technically it isn't during the course of you working for the company.

 

[placeholder]

If it's in your own time then technically it isn't during the course of you working for the company.

Thats fine but it would become a very blurred line if its something that was created by a group of people who happened to be work-mates too.

 

[Glaucus]

If it's in your own time then technically it isn't during the course of you working for the company.

That's not the case. One time or not, it's still during the course of work, ie employment.

 

[Energize]

Thats fine but it would become a very blurred line if its something that was created by a group of people who happened to be work-mates too.

You could say the same thing if they created it after they quit the job, the company could claim that they should own copyright because they met during the job, using techniques they learnt on the job or such rubbish. Thus it is clearly preposterous to try to assume copyright over something that someone did in their own time while they were employed for the company.

 

[Glaucus]

You could say the same thing if they created it after they quit the job, the company could claim that they should own copyright because they met during the job, using techniques they learnt on the job or such rubbish. Thus it is clearly preposterous to try to assume copyright over something that someone did in their own time while they were employed for the company.

Some contracts state things like you can't work for a competitor for x months and the like. These things are totally above board and enforceable.

 

[placeholder]

You could say the same thing if they created it after they quit the job, the company could claim that they should own copyright because they met during the job, using techniques they learnt on the job or such rubbish. Thus it is clearly preposterous to try to assume copyright over something that someone did in their own time while they were employed for the company.

Really?

Im not saying its right, im just not saying it is as clear cut as that.

Its a fine line between 3 guys sacked from a firm forming their own company as a result of being sacked, and 3 guys using the firms expertise and breaking away when they formed something that could become valuable.

Surely you can see why the law has to cover both?

 

[Angleboy]

That's not the case. One time or not, it's still during the course of work, ie employment.

No it isnt.

If you were to drive around a race course, and then leave and drive on public road, then later return to the race course, the the period of time where you were driving on public road would not have been during the race course driving.

If you are at home, not being paid, you are not "working for the company" EOD.


If the clause states "whilst working for the company" what I said is true.
If the clause states "during your employment" then they are breaking human rights laws, as technically such a clause would invalidate free speech amongst other things.

 

[placeholder]

No it isnt.

If you were to drive around a race course, and then leave and drive on public road, then later return to the race course, the the period of time where you were driving on public road would not have been during the race course driving.

If you are at home, not being paid, you are not "working for the company" EOD.


If the clause states "whilst working for the company" what I said is true.
If the clause states "during your employment" then they are breaking human rights laws, as technically such a clause would invalidate free speech amongst other things.

You are qouting examples that are not relevant at all.

 

[Glaucus]

If you are at home, not being paid, you are not "working for the company" EOD.


.

It doesn't matter in this case, in these contracts. It makes no difference if you are at home, it is due to poaching ideas, knowledge,training and the like. It is enforceable and it is well known about.
If he doesn't work in the games industry a quick chat with the company and he shoukd be able to get them to agree to not taking the rights.
your still working for the company. It's the same reason you can get fired for bringing the company into disrepute for oriabte affairs outside of work.

 

[Energize]

Some contracts state things like you can't work for a competitor for x months and the like. These things are totally above board and enforceable.

Are there any examples of these unethical contracts being enforced?

Really?

Im not saying its right, im just not saying it is as clear cut as that.

Its a fine line between 3 guys sacked from a firm forming their own company as a result of being sacked, and 3 guys using the firms expertise and breaking away when they formed something that could become valuable.

That's life, doesn't mean employers should be able to control employees to such a ridiculous degree, I'm sure they would chain them to their desk if they could. All one needs to do as an employer is have a contract stating that the employee must pay back training costs etc if they quit after x months, as many employers do.

 

[Destination]

What company do you work for?
Exactly what do they do?

 

[Glaucus]

Are there any examples of these unethical contracts being enforced?

Yes, but don't know The names of the top of my head. There has been several co outer/website ones when at uni, which have gone to become massive success. But the unis agreed to turn over the rights or split the profits.
There's nothing unethical about it, you just don't seem to understand why it is done.

Just becuase it is outside of work, doesn't mean you aren't using their training, their knowledge, their contacts etc.
It's like I'm not allowed to use my tickets(training) at other companies. It's the same idea.

 

[Destination]

Are there any examples of these unethical contracts being enforced?

Yes all the time.
Its hardly unethical when professional bodies back such contracts.
Even down to professions, dentists often work under such contracts, you can't be employed within x number of miles for y number of years. Range depending on ruralitity of where one was originally working.
The professional bodies back such clauses as they constitue madness for businesses to lost in this case potential IP to someone walking out.

 

[Energize]

Yes all the time.
Its hardly unethical when professional bodies back such contracts.
Even down to professions, dentists often work under such contracts, you can't be employed within x number of miles for y number of years. Range depending on ruralitity of where one was originally working.
The professional bodies back such clauses as they constitue madness for businesses to lost in this case potential IP to someone walking out.

Professional bodies really have no bearing on ethics, many organisations back unethical activities.

Yes, but don't know The names of the top of my head. There has been several co outer/website ones when at uni, which have gone to become massive success. But the unis agreed to turn over the rights or split the profits.
There's nothing unethical about it, you just don't seem to understand why it is done.

Just becuase it is outside of work, doesn't mean you aren't using their training, their knowledge, their contacts etc.
It's like I'm not allowed to use my tickets(training) at other companies. It's the same idea.

Just because people have a different opinion doesn't mean they don't understand. I just think it's a ridiculous control over someone's personal lives that is not ethically acceptable in a modern society. In the case of the university the students paid for the resources which makes it even worse! Would it be acceptable for the university to garnish the graduates wages too? Since that is comparable.

 

[placeholder]

That's life, doesn't mean employers should be able to control employees to such a ridiculous degree, I'm sure they would chain them to their desk if they could. All one needs to do as an employer is have a contract stating that the employee must pay back training costs etc if they quit after x months, as many employers do.

Thats what happens if you undergo training for a local authority under certain circumstances. You seem to be voicing what you think should happen as being fact.

This is not the same thing