Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Search Engine Optimization and Web Business



Message

Reflect -> Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/4/2005 12:13:33)

Hello,

I am not activley taking any clients however I still advise friends.

When reviewing a contract, from the CLIENTS perspective, you see nothing about source files and code. You then hit the developer, prior to anything being started, and point this out. The developer then states sure you can have the source code and images but it will be 1 1/2 times the contract price. Contract price is 5K. Site is flash based so .swf files would be needed. Also the developer states he/she owns the work, content included.

Advise I gave the friend, work this out prior to signing!!!

My thoughts:

1) You are paying for a completed web site on your own host you have rights to the source files as they will be paid for.

2) You have rights to the content that you, as the client, provided to the developer verbatum.

3) Deveolper wants to be domain names tech. contact and insists on registering domain. In my mind this means holding domain hostage at any given point by repointing domain to different DNS server after migrating site.

Developer wants to devlop site on his/her server and tehn FTP to clients server. This I advised is normal and not to worry.

Am I giving out bad advise? This just reeks to me of a hostage situtation down the road.

Take care,

Brian



dpf -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/4/2005 12:16:09)

quote:

Am I giving out bad advise? This just reeks to me of a hostage situtation down the road
excellent advice brian and something we shall all be facing. I agree, the client should own the source files and posses them and the domain name. btw, the true source files for flash are the .fla - you cannot modify the .swf



jaybee -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/4/2005 12:34:07)

Anything he has specifically commissioned and paid for he should get the rights to. You have to be careful in assignment though. Supposing I developed a site with a bulletin board and I used PHPBB. He cannot be given ownership of the source code of that as it's not mine to give.

Likewise, if I use some photographs on his site that I've purchased through Getty or similar, he has the right to use those on his site but he can't own them.

I have the following clause in my contract which, I hope, covers this.

quote:

38. Ownership to Web Pages and Graphics
Upon final payment of this contract, the client is assigned rights to use as a website the design, graphics, and text contained in the finished assembled website. Rights to photos, graphics, source code, work-up files, and computer programs are specifically not transferred to the client, and remain the property of their respective owners.



Donkey -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/4/2005 13:20:56)

I had a simillar argument with a photographer many years ago. He tried to pull the same trick. Wouldn't let me have transparencies I'd paid him to take a year before because he thought I was going to get prints made at a photo lab.

I think it is clear that as a client if you pay someone to create something specifically for you then the copyright should be yours. Anything else is theft.

If you purchase something that has already been created then this is a grey area and you should negotiate the copyright up front.



Reflect -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/4/2005 16:37:15)

Thank you.

I just talked with my friend. On my inital advise she informed the developer that she either gets source files or no contract. This covers psp, fla (thanks Dave I always get that one backwards), full site on CD, and content. This was at no extra cost.

The developer insisted on registering and being listed as the domains contact. This was last night. My friend stuck to what she wanted. In the morning, today, she got an e-mail stating this was acceptable.

[:)]

Take care,

Brian



Nicole -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/5/2005 6:46:28)

I have a clause in my contract that says that if i use stock photography on a client's site, that neither of us own that photography but i also won't use it on site for someone i deem to be in competition to the original client.

I may be missing the point with some of the other things mentioned in this thread, but as far as giving the client ownership of the code, i think i'm going to have to disagree.

What's wrong with giving the client "use" of the code for the purposes of displaying their website, like what else are they going to do with it? What's wrong with including a clause like the one above to state that as developer, i'm not going to use that same code on another website of a client in competition with the original. Of course i'm talking minor sites, not large multinationals.

Nicole



Donkey -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/5/2005 11:00:52)

quote:

giving the client ownership of the code
But...
The code will not be exactly the same for each client.
Large portions of the code will be simillar to code in use by thousands of others anyway.
What about code that you've adapted from something picked up in these forums or elsewhere, is it really yours to copyright?

I just think that if you make too much of this you will frighten off some potential clients, and you won't really gain anything concrete. From the clients point of view if I pay you 5000 dollars to build a web site then a year later we fall out for whatever reason and part company, I don't want you in a position where you could refuse to let the next designer modify "your" code. As a client my point of view is; I've paid for it so it's mine. End of story.

To be blunt I don't see how a client could "rip you off" over this point because you will always be able to use almost identical code with a slight modification anywhere else you want to.



Reflect -> RE: Client contract (from clients viewpoint) (3/8/2005 14:55:43)

quote:

a year later we fall out for whatever reason and part company, I don't want you in a position where you could refuse to let the next designer modify "your" code. As a client my point of view is; I've paid for it so it's mine. End of story.


Exactly my thoughts on this to a tee.

What if you want to modify the text on that flattened jpg? You need the psp file. What if you want to modify the flash intro? You need the source file.

Now the developer already did the work and got paid, why should they be involved unless from greed/want of more money? I relate this to a developer registering a domain for the client in his/her name.

Take care,

Brian



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.298828E-02