you pay for custom coding - 2 months later your script is avail retail! wtf? [drama]

spacedog is correct: the work belongs to YOU, since you contracted it. What this guy's planning to do is technically illegal. If you can prove that you contracted the work, you can more than likely sue when he tries selling it. I don't know all the legalities of this particular incident though, you really need to seek a lawyer's guidance for this one.

And ummm...spacedog...relax a bit, eh? No need to be ultravulgar, there are ladies present.

http://www.uspto.gov/ Just go apply for the patent and you hold the power...


Also as far as the little research I just did says you hold the IPR on the script as the inventor... The programmer has no rights...

who is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Them links might help you with some info also.... Good luck!

from a programmers view point..................

I would think it in poor taste to sell the exact same script, as far as the idea.. you have learned your lesson. Dont give programmers ideas you dont want them to use unless they sign an agreement not to use the idea "nda".

While i havent found myself in this exact scenario, sometimes people do ask for customization of scripts and i then use and resell those ideas, but they arent the main part of the script...

example. lets say i built a program called "notepad.exe" and you want the program but you would like to add a feature " it would be great to have such and such added " so i customize it for you , i dont see anything wrong with using that idea unless the person has asked me not to ( and people do ask these things from time to time )

Infact heres a real world situation that is quite similar to yours..

YOUTUBE. has its flash video player. they licensed the software from another company ( to do video to swf ), of course being a large company ( youtube ) they wanted certain customizations to the script, these same customizations are now available to anyone else who buys the same software.. now we dont know if it was youtube who thought up the ideas or the software writer but i imagine it was prob a bit of both.. kinda sucks for youtube that its unique features can be used by anyone else who buys the software right..

In your situation it is a "mod" not a complete program so while i do feel for you i cant really blame the programmer for seeing the potential in the idea and wanting to profit from it..

Personally if i was your programmer i would have said " hey this idea has potential" and split the profits.. the key thing most people miss is, anyone can program an idea, not everyone can think up ideas for a program so theres value in the original person who thought up the idea.. not just the software. i would rather have %50 of 3 great ideas than 100% of one..

p.s. as far as the legal standpoint, your sol. if you try to resell the script or give it away you will likely get sued and lose.

While you "may" have a legal right against him using the exact same code, he can modify the code and resell the idea unless he signed something saying he couldn't

i don't want to hype things too far out of proportion. the script itself is nothing overly unique. it's not a mind shattering breakthrough in technology or anything. basically it is a gallery builder/thumbcropper/image viewer rolled into one with a few seo tpe functions, it works within wordpress and pumps out galleries pretty well. i'd say it's safe to say that it blows arylia out of the water, but i never used arylia that much. i am just pissed that other people are now going to be able to purchase a script i thought would be exclusive and unique to my network, at a fraction of the cost i paid for it.

i'm out on this thread for now, i have work to do (installing my soon to be public script on another new blog actually, woot). the issue has been layed out and i understand where i stand now, the lesson has been learnt, hopefully someone else learns something from my mistake. and if anyone decides its something they want to purchase on release day, you know where to find me, lol

good article addressing this issue:
http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/...copyright.html

For those that are too lazy to read the whole thing -> "The software developer is the copyright owner."

That's exactly how it played out, in Canada, in the example I gave that I was involved in. The contractor was not considered an employee, and there was no valid employer-employee relationship.

"In our case, the bare facts indicate that the software designer is not the shop owner's employee. As a result, the employee portion of the "work for hire" doctrine does not apply."

[QUOTE=Napolean;12146810]You should drop the programmers name in here so noone else works with him, thats a very shady thing for a programmer to do. Its common sense that custom work is 99% of the time exclusive as well, which means.. you dont want copies for sale all over.

It's also bullshit that you financed the production of the software and that the programmer is now turning around and reselling it for even cheaper. Why did you have to pay more than everyone else? If he was going to resell it later he should have charged you retail as well.


Whenever I talk to programmers, they try to say I have to pay 40% more if I want to keep my ideas/software exclusive, not resold, or remade, plagarized, etc.

but I'm a push over for a lot of things and dont have the best connections. In the programming world, what is the STANDARD etiquette as far as innovative software ideas are concerned?

If you think of some revolutionary software and pay good rates to have it made, are you supposed to pay 40% extra to keep it private, even then they could still clone it and make a few changes to say they didnt copy you.

What is the main consensus moral wise in the programming community on this? I have like 10 programs ive never had made because I dont trust that it wont be resold or copied in some way unless I get in house programmers that sign their life away

Unless a full release is signed, the person who CREATES the work owns it and holds all copyrights to it.

The same goes for design. If I design a logo, I own that logo until otherwise stated by either a usage rights agreement or full release. This usually determines the price. I have designed many logos in the past that were only allowed to be used for signage, then the client wanted to make t-shirts & hats with the logo, they were required to pay me more for that, because the original price was based on the usage only being for the sign.

The circumstances in which a work is considered a work made for hire is determined by the language of the United States Copyright Act:

Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, f the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. 17 U.S.C. sec 101

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said, before Spacedog told us he was the expert.

Yes but does even a full release protect your software you contracted out from being slightly modified and then resold?

you'd need ke XPAYS legal team to truly protect contract for hire work wouldnt you?

I'm thinking the only way software you 'think of' would truly be safe is to hire someone inhouse, locally, via PAYROLL as your employee, AND make him sign NDA, non compete? and more papers probably.