On January 29, 2009 at 22:48, dsp81 said...
But they are not creating individualized code at the behest
of the customer. For instance, if I hire you to write
me an order processing system, then who owns the copyright
on that system? Depending on the agency relationship,
it could be you or me. Same situation here. I'm not arguing
that once the code is loaded into the remote that it does
not resemble an iPod. I'm saying that the customer could
possibly be the owner of the copyright because it was
done at their command.
Are you hiring me to provide you with an order processing system or are you hiring me to provide you with an order processing system and the code to edit/update it?
Im not sure about who holds the copyright but thats another issue IMO. The first issue is determining whether or not the end user should get the compiled code as part of the finished solution or if they should get the uncompiled code so that they can edit the programming. This has to be A.Spelled out in the contract or B.Decided in court.
Once the question of what 'programming' means as it relates to the code for a clients system.. then the question of who owns the copyright of A.the uncompiled code or B.compiled code can be debated.
Copyright would matter in determining ownership of the
work. Again, if the court finds a particular agency relationship,
the customer could be the copyright owner. I don't think
it would, but that's just me talking from you know where.
In fact, I think you'd have to have a very particular
set of circumstances to get there. But somebody has to
own the work. If you do, then you are licensing to the
end-user. That has its own set of peculiarities.
I agree with this completely. But.. the "work" could mean A. the uncompiled code or B. the compiled code.
