Who Owns Your Weblog? 57
An anonymous reader asks: "If you're a weblogger, have you read the fine print of your employment agreement? Many webloggers are techies and many tech employers have highly restrictive IP clauses in their employment contracts - the employers owns you and everything you do whether at work or at home or anywhere else. Are you sure you own your weblog? You may not be allowed to take it with you when you change jobs." As always, please remember to look over those employment contracts before you sign. With that point mentioned however, are employers still likely to employ someone who is willing to argue points on their contract, especially in this economic climate?
well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:1)
I'm no Director or Group Manager, just a hacker, but I've had such "All your time are belong to us" clauses striken from contracts twice.
I just pointed out that, under the clause as written, I couldn't teach my karate classes, or write my poetry. Surely they didn't mean such a silly thing as that, I know it's not their intention, but I can't sign a binding document th
Re:well (Score:4, Informative)
If you think it's about "comfort", you're probably not very familar with the dilemma.
For most people, it's not a matter of "comfort", it's a matter of "Getting a job after a year of unemployment", "Not having to sell the house", "Feed the kids", "Switching industries and starting at the bottom", "Working at McDonalds".
You make it seem like these these clauses are new. They've been in every employment contract I've seen for the last 8 years; and have been around for much, much longer then that.
Re:well (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're out of work, and the unemployment benefits run out, swallow your goddamn pride and get that job flipping burgers. Then go out and get a second part-time -- hell, even a full time job scooping ice cream or pouring coffee or something. Do that while you're looking for that job in the area of your expertise.
But how can I do interviews when I'm working all the time?
Make your "weekends" on a Tuesday and Wednesday or something. M
Re:well (Score:1)
I think the parent was making the same point. But he was saying that sucking it up and not owning your blog is better than working at McDonald's. Now if you go to the grandparent, you've got a point.
Or perhaps I'm all wrong. But 'providing for your family' is much easier done at some desk job than at Mc Donald's.
Or something.
Re:well (Score:2)
While it's fraudulent to add qualifications to your resume, it's not fraudulent to leave them out. So trim your resume to the job.
I've done this before.
Re:well (Score:2)
Do that while you're looking for that job in the area of your expertise.
These crappy jobs must come with a potion to extend the day an extra 8 hours, so you can work full time AND look for a job full time. Or perhaps you're just supposed to skip sleeping.
Re:well (Score:2)
Some people are luckier, more in demand, or have better negotiating skills.
I have known people who got them removed, but that was back in 1999/2000 during the boom.
Since then, I have known several out-of-work people who have unsuccessfully tried to remove the clause. Several lost the job to someone else because of this.
If you've been out of work for a year, and then you loose a j
Re:well (Score:2)
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
One manager told me that the only reason they have that clause in the first contract they offer is as a test to see if an applicant will just accept what they are given, or if they will take the initiative to try to change it.
Ah but which of those two types of people were they looking for?
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite all the whining, there are plenty of other employers out there, and many of them don't have such clauses in their contracts. In fact, I have never seen an employment contract that had such a clause, and I do read them. I was just hired at a large tech company wit
Just a question. (Score:2)
Re:Just a question. (Score:2)
Some people do that, but they're probably not on Slashdot. Rather, they're hiking through the Himilayas or Patagonia right now.
easy. I do. (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux training/publishing companies will keep you (Score:2)
News how...? (Score:2)
All I know is I can't ever sign anything like this. I can't afford to potentially taint my external
Re:News how...? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:News how...? (Score:2)
Law? (Score:5, Informative)
I work in california.us, where we have laws [ca.gov] about this kind of thing, for example:
Larry
Re:Law? (Score:2)
For their courtesy, I don't check my personal email, post to my weblog, work on personal projects, sleep, run pyramid schemes, etc. from work.
Thus, they pay me to work on their stuff, and I do. And then I go home and work on other stuff, which largely helps keep me sane.
-transiit
Re:Law? (Score:3, Redundant)
If you're doing this using your employer's computer, using your employer's Internet connectivity, in your employer's facilities then you this law doesn't protect you.
UNLESS you make a deal for use of Employer's gear (Score:2)
Who says you can't make a deal ($ for use)
like that, but which doesn't force you to
give away something you value?
Such a deal might save you travel time,
eg if you're (otherwise) on-call, ie
when you're needed back at the office
(you might aleady be there, doing your
own thing on contracted gear, using a
fast 'net connection you've contracted
to use on a strictly after-hours basis;
walk over, fix their glitch [quicker than
you would if you had to drive in first]
& later resume your own
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
And neither should it! They provide you with the tools to do your job for them, not for your own use.
OTOH I don't see what business it is of theirs what you do in your own time with your own resources.
A very sensible law.
As always, check your contract (Score:2)
My contract has the usual sort of clause assigning rights to my employer for things I create. It also has a specific exemption (that they put in, not me) for anything created outside my normal working hours and unconnected with my employment.
I asked to see a copy of the full contract before accepting the job, precisely to check whether such a clause was there. If it hadn't been, and they hadn't been prepared to insert one, they wouldn't have got me.
No, the employment market is not so bad that I will sig
Creative editing (Score:2, Interesting)
The doc was much like previous ones, but contained a total assignment of all copyrights. I thought that was over-reaching, and modified the language to read exactly like for inventions and patents "in the course of or resulting from employment". Signed and sent the form in two years ago. No probs. They won't look at it
Re:Creative editing (Score:1)
Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contract (Score:5, Informative)
My experience was at the American Red Cross. I was responsible for maintaining our local list of ineligible blood donors (positive infectious disease test results and the like). One day, everyone in the place was presented with a new "employment agreement" which we were supposed to sign. One of the provisions indicated just what is described in this story; specifically, anything I happened to create, invent, design, etc. - whether during work hours or not - belonged to the American Red Cross unless they decided to relinquish those rights. Now, I'm no kind of inventor but I was 23 years old with few responsibilities beyond myself and so I was the perfect person to protest this agreement on pure principle. I adamantly refused to sign the paper because I felt that it gave too much power over my life to my employer, not to mention the fact that a non-profit corporation specializing in disaster relief and blood collection/distribution shouldn't have an interest in anything that I create (assuming it has nothing to do with disaster relief, blood collection, etc.).
At first, I was told that if I didn't sign the paper I was risking the loss of my job. I maintained that this was a chance I was willing to take (and encouraged others to do the same). About a month later, the new employment agreement was revised into a more palatable format. Though I can't recall if it specified inventions/creations relating specifically to my employment or if the clause was taken out completely, the document was acceptable and I signed.
My advice is pretty simple: Check your state/local laws - as in a post above, an overly restrictive clause of this nature could be invalid on its face. If it IS valid, then you have to decide if a) you're willing (and financially able) to leave the job on principle to hopefully find one where you're not forced to sign such an odious document, b) you're going to create/design/invent something in which your company would want to claim an interest or c) you know you're not going to create something that you will want to sell (or release, a la open source) to which you could lose your rights. After all, while a company could theoretically lay claim to, for example, your David Hasselhoff fan site, they probably won't. On the other hand, if you create brand new database software in your free time while working for [any] software company, they could potentially strip it from you and from anyone else to whom you have given or sold it.
At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.
Re:Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contra (Score:1)
At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.
And I'm sure they won't make *that* mistake again.
Re:Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contra (Score:2)
As such, companies now are trying to retain rights to _everything_ rather than let anyone catch a break from them.
Although the temptation is to argue the toss, I think it tends to depend on what's being talked about...if you develop a competing product at work, then there's no doubt that you owe them, but there isn't a chance in hell that I'd let my company have any part of my life outside hours or the front doors unless they p
I am a techie, and I entirely agree with this (Score:2)
In no case I have ever seen was a person actually fired for not signing one of these. On the other hand, I've never been in a situation where I had to sign one of those to get hired in the first place. Are there any act
Also a techie. (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re-read your employment contract... chances are that it says that they can claim ownership of your "wn personal bit of webspace given to [you] as part of [your] private dial-up account" if they want... Probably also your letters to the editor...
Be careful what you assume...
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I am not working at the moment, but if I was would my employer really want to own my articles on names for use in the sca and my pictures of Jerusalem? All are on my web site, but who cares.
Does your webhost own your weblog? (Score:2)
Re:Does your webhost own your weblog? (Score:4, Interesting)
MT.
Re:Does your webhost own your weblog? (Score:2)
So, use Greenspun's "Gang of Five" model... (Score:3, Interesting)
and - it's been a so long since I
first read about it - that I may
have the number of team members
wrong...
But the idea is something like this:
It's a business model for database-based
web system design that brings [4 or] 5
talents together to work on a stream of
projects, rotating "hats" (ie, Project
Manage, Programmer, Customer Liason,
Graphic Designer, et al.) as they move
from one project to another.
As the number of projects grows to be
more than one "Gang of [4 or] Five"
can handle, another "Gang" forms to
handle the overload.
I suppose there could be a loose coupling
between the various, independent "Gangs"
(eg, to enable "load balancing" to happen),
but they could just as well remain separate
entities & control their own destinies...
a bit like music bands.
Thus, if you control your own destiny,
you can write your own IP clauses...
to encourage members' creativity,
while still protecting Clients' rights
to their IP & sensitive business info.
I can see a contract (akin to the GPL),
- incorporating these IP terms - that
each "Gang of [4 or] Five" would find
acceptable.
Of course, I can also see a family of
such contracts (like those that have
been embraced by one or more developers
of various flavors of Open Source S/W),
that new "Gangs" could choose, accord-
ing to their &/or their current Client's
preferences & needs.
IMO this problem has an easy solution!
Let's create a website on IP terms & co, names (Score:2)
It might help put a bit of pressure on employers,
eg if their contractual IP terms were -listed- on
a well-known web site, that people could consult,
just before job-hopping...
If it were -also- suggested that -less- creative
people (ie those with little to lose by signing
a -bad- IP contract) were more likely to be the
ones working at one category of company, than
the other category...
well, those companies concerned about their
reputations in the market (eg, as being very
innovative), might
I do it (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that clause so completely unacceptable, and I think any workplace who would not concede to change it, are a bunch of nasty buggers anyway.
I argue that I partake in open source projects and free/shareware. That's usually ample argument.
Re:I do it (Score:1)
Worth arguing the point (Score:1)
Simply ask them to exclude anything that is done entirely in your free time without use of company equipment, and most companies will accept. It doesn't cost them anything, and even though the market is in decline, they still don't want to get rid of employees over trivial disputes over contractual clauses.
Money (Score:2)
You don't have to accept it (Score:3, Interesting)
a) Negotiate. (if you have good rapport)
OR
b) Change the contract explicitly - strike out paragraphs. (if you have good bargaining power or couldn't be bothered).
OR
c) Write a new contract that looks almost the same and use it.
(if you don't have bargaining power).
Yes. Change it to suit yourself. Print it out again make it look almost exactly the same - fonts, layout etc.
If both parties sign it, then it's agreed then. Hey they entered into it with their eyes opened right?
Just tell them you need time to think about it. Go home, pick the right fonts, similar paper and reproduce the whole thing with a few custom changes.
Remember keep a straight face, sign it, give it to them and they'll probably sign it without reading the fine print (idiots
If they notice, well you've proven one thing to them at least:
1) you're resourceful.
2) you're one of the few who treat what they sign seriously. Not one of the sheeple.
I've successfully done a similar thing before on a so called NDA. Took me a couple of hours to retype the thing and get the font sizes right.
But let me put it this way - the new NDA didn't restrict my rights at all...
Of course in the US you might come under the DMCA for reverse engineering the contract document or some other dumb US law. But I'm not in the US.
Re:You don't have to accept it (Score:1)
That sounds dangerously close to fraud and deceptive business practices to me. At the very least, it shows substantial bad faith on your part. If you want to negotiate something, then by all means negotiate it. But at least be honest about it.
what are you going to put in your weblog? (Score:1)
Does anyone know people that actually post copyrighted code, inside stock information, blueprints, etc. on their weblog??
If in doubt... (Score:1)
Huh? This article misses the point by a mile. (Score:2)
Now if you are a journalist, reporter, or employed in a fashion along those lines as an employee and not a free-lance contributor, then I could see personal writin
Another data point (Score:2)