On January 29, 2009 at 16:40, dsp81 said...
This situation is a little different than your iPod hypothetical
because the client hires you to write specific code for
their particular installation. The question (one of law)
is whether this is contribution to collective work under
the "work for hire" doctrine of copyright law.
What im saying is that an argument can be made that the integrated crestron audio video system and the ipod are exactly the same. The "work for hire" programming, could be interpreted as the compiled code that makes the system function.
There could be specific modules included in that code
which could be covered under a separate copyright, but
you are granting a license to the end-user when you include
it in the compiled program.
For the sake of keeping things simple here we should exclude modules and artwork that are not owned outright by the programmer. Lets just assume the programmer created everything and can freely license anything he wants to the end user.
of Use an iPod is governed by license, but differs because the end-user does not
contract with Apple to build a specialized program, particular
to their installation.
The end user contacts me for an integrated audio video solution. They dont contact me for a specialized program particular to their installation. One could argue that Apple built a specialized program, particular to apple users.
This is what im talking about. I know both sides of this but we still come to the same question.. Is the client paying for a 1 time single uneditable solution or are they paying for all of the bits and peices that its made up of?
With the ipod there is no lingering question. Its on a shelf, done, no customization with a price tag on it. The fact that the crestron system is tailored to an individual does not make it different because the end result is a product thats done and serving its intended purpose.
I am not arguing for one side or the other.. Just explaining that.. without a contract that is specific about the details.. it could go either way in court. Hopefully the judge is happy with his Crestron system :).
