Hacker News Reader

Comment by menloparkbum | Hacker News Reader

Um. There is some really bad advice in this thread. In fact, nearly everyone is giving you bad advice and doesn't seem to know anything about copyright law.

First - YOU own all the rights to the code, since you created it - even if they paid you. If you sign that contract, THEY own all the rights to the code.

Second - It is up to you how you want to proceed, but if you want to own the rights to the code, just keep working without a contract.

Third - DON'T involve any other lawyers or write up your own contract or call the school's tech transfer office. This is only going to set up the situation to favor the other guy or the school. Remember, YOU own everything.

Fourth - The lawyer dad knows all of this and that is why he wants you to sign the contract. Lawyers are assholes - DON'T let him bully you into signing anything.

View on HN

YOU own all the rights to the code, since you created it - even if they paid you.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

I'm not an attorney myself (nor am I trying to be flippant or argumentative), but it seems the combination of verbal contract, his continuing to do the work specified by his roommate, and his acceptance of payment may create problems for the O.P.

Lawyers are assholes - DON'T let him bully you into signing anything.

Very true: standard legal M.O. on the first contract document is to try to get away with anything.

I.e., they will expect you to push back and remove some terms (and if you don't, that's a bonus win for them).

Yes, I am absolutely certain. I am not a lawyer but I was an independent programmer for 6 years and successfully resolved 3 disputes over IP in my favor.

Most programmers want to avoid any sort of conflict and confrontation, especially with lawyers. You're correct in assuming that this may create problems. The potential problem in this situation is that the lawyer dad is going to be an asshole and try to intimidate the programmer. This sucks, and the programmer should maybe back out of the project if he wants to avoid this.

His acceptance of payment / verbal contract amounts to him granting license, not transfer of copyright.

You don't have to take anybody's word for it. Most of title 17 is reasonably accessible:

Ownership:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201----...

See especially the definition of "work made for hire" here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----...

I'm a little confused

A “work made for hire” is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

I read that as: if someone hired you to write some code for them, then the code you write seems to be work made for hire, in which case they own the copyright.

I think this is not a work made for hire because it was done on contract rather than as an employee. From PubLaw (http://www.publaw.com/work2.html)

"But if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com