Comment by mgkimsal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgkimsal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've brought this up as the "child porn" clause, and had brought it up in an employment contract once many years ago. Basic language was "we own anything you create". I said "I don't really think you want that - if I create some child porn, you're the owners". I seem to remember I had some less restrictive language placed in my contract vs that one, but I don't think it made a change to anyone else's contracts.

Yes, it felt a bit 'nuclear' dropping such a charged statement like that, and even when I bring it up as an example in conversation, some people cringe - a 'sex tape' analogy might be less offensive to some, but the basic premise still stands. Any company that wants to claim ownership of every piece of content or code I 'create' needs to understand what that really entails. It might actually give some people license to work on legally questionable stuff (not child porn so much as, say, banned crypto), knowing that they don't really 'own' it and thinking someone else might be responsible for the consequences.

IANAL , but I believe in this case the offence would be in the creation and distribution of this content not necessarily in owning the IP.

Otherwise you could technically make the same argument about instagram for example.

nothing said about distributing it, although I see your point on the creation of it. But I'm not sure I'd be able to make that distinction about anything else valuable - "well, company x, you might 'own' this, but I created it and can do whatever I want with it". They want the benefits without any risks - ain't gonna happen.

Well... I say that, but I think everyone might have their price. I've got mine, and yes, sure, would I sign away all my IP created during employment for $x? yes, but no one has yet come close to that $x in job offers I get.

Employment contracts are almost always written to supply as many benefits to the employer and mitigate as many risks as possible.

The worst case scenario for them is that they find out that certain clauses are not enforceable. In reality I imagine it is often known that some may be unenforceable but they are added anyway on the basis that the employee doesn't know this.

One of the few things I've learned over the last 10 years or so is to be much bolder in work/job relationships. If I see something in a contract that is too one-sided, I strike it out and bring it up and say "I'm not agreeing to that". Will I sign a contract with, say, a 5 year non-compete (even assuming the non-compete is enforceable)? Generally no, unless there's a huge compensation package tied to make up for the time when I can't use my knowledge in the market. Would I sign one with a 3-6 month non-compete? Probably.

15 years ago I'd sign anything. Today, not so much.

This is true, many people don't realise that contract terms are technically negotiable in the same way that salary and things are.

In GA the constitution USED to be written such that unenforceable contracts, especially unenforceable employment contracts, were void in their entirety.

They sadly passed an amendment to remove that :O(

Is GA something to do with a US state?

Please spell these things out in full. It's only a few extra characters and it helps the rest of us pretend this site is global.

Spelling it out does not disambiguate it, as there is a country named that as well.

GA is oddly enough likely more specific, even if harder to decode, than Georgia. The country is abbreviated GE.

You are correct sir, GA is the 2-letter abbreviation for the state of Georgia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com