Heres my situation:
I'm working doing web design for a publishing company where I'm pretty much the only IT literate person around. I'm doing this job looking to move on when I find something better, and hoping to use the websites I develop here to get myself another job.
Now, I've been informed by other staff that our boss, who is the only person who I've really worked with regarding the website, doesn't like giving written references. This threatens my plans obviously.
So I've thought, would it be ethical to embed my name into the html code of the websites I am developing, so that I can just point a potential employer towards them? I would probably have to do this without the knowledge of my boss as I think he would object.
Sort of IP question
Moderator: General Moderators
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Hmm. Rocky area. I wouldn't go so far as to go write "This website was designed by <name here>... blah blah".
You could quite legitimately do something like:
<!-- Last Updated 6th June 2006, [Your Name] -->
That's just orgnisation
To be honest most employers will take your word for it if you can point them to URLs. If they wanted to see PHP Code and stuff like that it's extremely common that people are not allowed to show this after leaving a job and they shouldn't think anything of it
There's nothing to stop you referencing the work in your portfolio AFAIK. It would be extremely unreasonable of your employer to ask that of you. Claiming that the work belongs to you is another matter.
You could quite legitimately do something like:
<!-- Last Updated 6th June 2006, [Your Name] -->
That's just orgnisation
To be honest most employers will take your word for it if you can point them to URLs. If they wanted to see PHP Code and stuff like that it's extremely common that people are not allowed to show this after leaving a job and they shouldn't think anything of it
There's nothing to stop you referencing the work in your portfolio AFAIK. It would be extremely unreasonable of your employer to ask that of you. Claiming that the work belongs to you is another matter.
-
SpiderMonkey
- Forum Commoner
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:48 am
I wouldn't claim the code belonged to me in the sense that I could lift it and use it elsewhere, or otherwise profit from/distribute it - I am simply claiming, correctly, that the code was written by me and only me.
The php is a good point - given that I've not signed any kind of IP agreement (its a small business) - whats the position on taking the source code home only to use as a sample of my work?
The php is a good point - given that I've not signed any kind of IP agreement (its a small business) - whats the position on taking the source code home only to use as a sample of my work?
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Most likely not allowed, although difficult to prove you've done it providing you don't literally copy and paste the code into other applications. Keeping it for reference is still not allowed but, well, ya knowSpiderMonkey wrote:he php is a good point - given that I've not signed any kind of IP agreement (its a small business) - whats the position on taking the source code home only to use as a sample of my work?
EDIT | By thew way, if you've not signed anything about Intellectual Property I don't think they could go far with anything in Court unless you were taking money as a result of using the code.
Three hits:d11wtq wrote: Most likely not allowed, although difficult to prove you've done it providing you don't literally copy and paste the code into other applications. Keeping it for reference is still not allowed but, well, ya know
EDIT | By thew way, if you've not signed anything about Intellectual Property I don't think they could go far with anything in Court unless you were taking money as a result of using the code.
1. There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" in US law. The use is intended to confuse three subjects (Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights), to give the illusion that "IP" has the strength of enforcement of all three. Don't help confuse people by using that term. Focus on which item applies. Here, its copyright.
2. Copyright doesn't begin protection based on an agreement. The company in question has copyright on the code as soon as he writes it under contract. Yes, his work, their copyright. Because his work responsibilities include generating code, they own it presumptively. (The question of whether he can use that same code elsewhere, like in other projects, is less well-defined if he didn't sign an agreement).
3. They (being a company that hired him to do work) can most definitely "go far" with plenty in court - even if he isn't taking money for the result of using the code. Profit motive is usually more of a factor in Trademark cases. See the danger in mixing Trademarks and Copyright into one (fake/misleading) term?
-
SpiderMonkey
- Forum Commoner
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:48 am
Then you are slightly better off. Pretty much everyone on "the other side of the pond" has more reasonable laws than the US. (More reasonable for the consumer, as opposed to the businesses). From your description, I'd say that meta tags, html comments, and the like are fair and reasonable ways to include 'proof' of your authorship. That coupled with putting an html replica of it together on a 'demo' CD should be reasonable (as long as the replica's don't contain the actual backend code). That way, you aren't copying the code, but you can show the appearance, and *describe* the behavior - plus you can point them to the real deal, with your comments in the source.SpiderMonkey wrote:Damn, should've mentioned - I'm in the UK so its a sligthly different legal situation.
Thats a solid portfolio, its entirely reasonable, and I'm hard pressed to see a judge ruling that wasn't reasonable.
Not the purpose - The negotiated end result. Much of European copyright, trademark, and patent law is being changed AFTER it has been passed to match the US laws. Very different things.SpiderMonkey wrote:That said, the purpose of most recent European IP law has been to conform with US laws.
(And don't say IP law - there is no such beast!)