All this over a 30$ Job and I don't even know who wants to sue me.
- Thread starter kblessinggr
- Start date
- Status
Correction, 'concept' was virtually the same, the code itself is definitely different. IF all I did was the exact same php file and zip it up and slap that up on the web, then ya I guess I could see that being a bit unethical.
I guess like in photography, if someone things of shooting a picture of someone holding a spoon, they can't legally restrict someone else from shooting someone else holding a spoon, or restrict the photographer from shooting the same concept again, of someone holding a spoon.
The "concept" is using PHP to detect whether or not the page/site calling the script, is of the same domain as where the script is hosted, and if not inserts a javascript file (also packaged with JQuery, and the /packer/ php port, which of course cannot be owned, but only distributed under GPL, as due credit is given in documentation)
Dozens of people have done the same thing already, and to my knowledge no one owns a patent on that 'concept'. So I rewrote a script that does the same thing, but made it better and easier to configure... I'm not selling an exact copy work I already did, I am re-using a simple concept that has already been reused by many before me. IF someone actually bothered to tell me "yea and I don't want anyone else to have this capability, even if they contact you directly for it" ,then I'll be like 'well lets re-negotiate the price so you get what you want, and makes it worthwhile for so I'm not tying my hands for so low a price'.
For 30$, I consulted, I reused existing code and code knowledge (hell the href change out was an example on jquery's documentation), I taught, and hand-held, I spent my time making sure he understood how it worked, and how it was configured. I sold a service, not an exclusive product, and if he resold this to his "parent" company, it wasn't in his right to do so, unless hired as an employee by the parent company. He still hasn't told me what company that is, just a new email saying I'll agree to sign over complete rights to him, and agree not to use that concept with future clients.
Yeah but a large percentage of applications all deal with customer management, order management, or both, you're telling me you write from scratch everytime, not even some copy/pasting of DB access code or common glabal vars? If you're a run of the mill free lancer you're bound to come upon common business problems that can be solved with the same code you've written X number of times before.
I see your removed the link, because #1 the case took place in Canada, and #2 it had everything to do with the freelancer suing the employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_v._Thomson_Corp.
As per your citations, and there was nothing in writing.
That's because all programmers are also ninjas.(but not all ninjas are programmers)
Next time make it clear what capacity you are working in. Are you selling a script or are you working in a consulting capacity which entails writing some code? And if you think you might want to sell a work that's similar, tell them you reserve the right to do so.
I'd try giving the $30 back and see if paypaljohnny or whatever his name is can give something back to ooglyboogly or whatever their name is. If you can't reach an agreement and you still want to sell it I guess you'll have to contact a lawyer. Good luck.
This thing has gone too far, and it comes down to freedom of speech I think. He can't dictate to you what scripts you can write, or compel you to never write another script like it in the future. That's nonsense. I have a book called "The Writer Got Screwed But Didn't Have To" that was targeted to screenwriters, but is relevant here because it's about copyright law. To wit: It's not possible to steal an idea; what's forbidden is to steal the unique expression of an idea. You can write a movie script (or software script) to express any idea, but not steal another's code to accomplish this.
In my view, the customer purchased a solution, one that entailed a custom script from Karl, the implementation of the script and instructions on how to use it. The script itself is Karl's intellectual property.
Karl wrote a little custom script for me last week that I paid him for. It wasn't the script that I bought; rather Karl's solution to my particular problem was the purchase. Karl originally wrote KBlinker for me, it's his handiwork and I claim no rights to his profits even though he was paid to produce it. He got paid for providing a solution to my problem, and I even prodded him: "sell it, sell it."
If I go to a hairdresser and complain about my hair, and the hair stylist creates a custom formula that I like for $30, can I reproduce it in a lab and market the product as my creation? No. I paid for a solution to my problem, but the formulation would belong to the hairdresser.
Software/business process patents would dictate otherwise. If not each company implementing a patented methodology would claim that their implementation through code is their unique expression, but that doesn't hold up. Micrsoft is currently fighting in court due to their infringement of XML patents held by a i4i inc. Software companies regularly stock up on patents because, fucked as current IP law may be, it is possible (and illegal) to steal an idea.
Yup, removed about 5 seconds after I posted because I realized my mistake.
WTF?? Are you just trying to be an ass? Did you even bother to go to copyright.gov?
If you need an exact citation, Section 101 of the US Copyright Law defines what is a "work for hire."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
Work For Hire act of 1975, would require me to be a salaried/etc "Employee" of the company that employs me, and to be within my normal job description of my employment. Freelancing doesn't fall under that, its the same way with photography.
In the latest email I received from "JohnnyPal" I was basically asked to sign over rights to 'him', and not his 'parent' company, or the Doobly Goobly guy. Keep in mind I still have not received any direct communication from his company or the guy who originally contacted the Moderator to have the thread removed.
It's his company, but it needs to be owned by him? And they're the ones that would pursue legal action for what would be assigned to his personal name?
In my curiosity, I'm waiting to find out what his company name is, and who was the "DG" guy that contacted the Moderator. And assholes with a load of money... did he upsell them a job I did for 30$, and promise them something I did not, is that why its so dire to have it in his name?
Anywho just responding to the thread in my 'lazy time'.
I'm at the exact opposite sentiments about this thread. Any programmer who thinks they own the script i pay them to develop and feel they have a right to resell the work I hired them to do FOR ANY AMOUNT is not okay in my book. Content writers don't own and aren't allowed to resell the content you pay them to write for you. Designers aren't allowed to resell your logos or designs. Programmers aren't any different and have no special rights any other freelancer has. I expect any freelancer I hire to respect that and our client privileges. To do otherwise is ripping me off and would really piss me off.
Anyone who thinks the dollar amount matters or the lack of a written contract means you can do whatever you want with your clients code is delusional to the way the law works. It's a lawsuit not a criminal proceeding. The judge doesn't have to determine his verdict based on whether or not any technical laws or contracts were broken. The judgement is based on obligations. If the judge feels the defendant did something immoral theres no immunity behind the lack of a contract or a TOS. They can and will rule in favor of the victim. It's like all those ebay scammers that thought they were immune to being sued because they specifically said in the auction that the person is only paying for a box of the item and not the item themselves then only shipping an empty box or pictures of the item for $500 haha. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
Yeah that email you received from JohnnyPal isn't really adding up. "Assholes with loads of money" wouldn't be spending their days trolling WF looking to issue takedown notices for 30 dollar scripts. It sounds like this guy saw what you were doing and wanted to resell it himself.
If a moderator took down the thread can they see if the IPs match up between JohnnyPal and Doobly Goobly?
If you get code written by a programmer, you have all right to demand that it should not be reused. But you cannot expect him to never reuse the concept.
So, Karl has the right to reuse the concept of code for protecting landing pages, since he is not bound by any special agreements.
If he reuses the code as such, what you said is 100% valid. He didn't though (at least, according to his explanations).
I agree, but I think the spirit of the software has value to some extent too. Value that supersedes the "can't use the concept".
Given what the concept is in this case though, it seems pretty "public domain" in its simplicity. No one would say that the concept of echo "hello world"; was theirs and I wouldn't say the concept of comparing two domain names is mine.
Yeah but Karl rewrote the script and that figures heavily into it. By your analogy would an article writer only be allowed to write about home loan refinance once? There are only so many ways to describe the process. And a logo designer that does a teeth whitening logo is probably going to run into multiple requests to show pretty smiles in the logos, can he only use that concept once?
Scripts, logos, copy, these are all items that are needed over and over and over again by countless individuals and companies out there, free lancers can't be under some kind of "once and done" per "idea". If the original purchaser didn't feel the need to put stipulations beyond price into the agreement Karl shouldn't have to worry about getting shaken down when the guy realized he missed a good business opportunity to lock up Karl's implementation.
No for god sake. You keep saying that and that's not what anyone is saying at all. An article writer can only write the same article once. If he writes a different article based on intrinsic knowledge or new research, he's totally in the clear.
If he sells the same article twice, he's a thief, for sure. If he takes an old article and rewrites it, its questionable.
Same with the logo designer. If he sells the same logo, or a logo that's an old logo recreated/slightly changed, he's a thief. If he redesigns a logo based on a concept as requested/as design rules would dictate/as whatever, he's fine.
Every how-to guide and programming book would owe Brian Kernighan a shitload of money otherwise for their variations of "Hello World" in just bout any programming language.
- Status