Who owns the copy if a copywriter provides copy as a paid service?
I build websites. I've used a copywriter to provide the website copy, the client paid the writer directly.
I placed copyright signs on the site for the writer as requested. However, they have now fallen out with the business owner and have asked me to remove all their copy as they claim to own it.
I've researched this, but all I can see is that if the writer has been paid for their services, they can no longer claim ownership of the copy and it belongs to the business owner who paid for their services.
Is the above true, is either party in a stronger legal position?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/26709. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Your suggested edit on this post is pending review.
I am not a lawyer. But in school I did have a class entitled "engineering and the law" taught jointly by a lawyer and an engineering prof. They said that if there is a contract, the owner is as specified in the contract (normally the client). If the contract doesn't address the issue, the copyright resides with the author. If the client paid the author, there is an implied permission to use the work in the context it was written for. The upshot would be that the author (in the absence of other contract provisions) can reuse the work in other contexts, cannot deprive the client of use in the intended context, and the client cannot use it in another context. As I understood it then.
As others have said, you had best speak with a lawyer.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26728. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I've researched this, but all I can see is that if the writer has been paid for their services, they can no longer claim ownership of the copy and it belongs to the business owner who paid for their services.
A writer owns the copyright to their work, unless it is specifically a "work for hire" which is a legal term, that only applies if there is a contract that specifically states it. It doesn't happen by accident. So then what did the client buy? There really is no telling without seeing the contract. The grant could be vague like the business is allowed to use it, it could be specific and say the website could use it (in which case it would be illegal to print in a brochure). Then there is the length of time the rights are granted, there could be specific time limits, or in perpetuity (forever).
In my limited experience, freelance copywriters usually assign all rights in perpetuity to the client upon full payment. The copywriter will also retain the right to use the work for their portfolio. My guess would be if the client paid the copywriter in full then the client has all the rights to it. You work for your client not the copywriter so unless you have some vested interest in keeping the copywriter happy, do what your client says.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26720. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Your business is with the client.
Tell the writer to contact the client. Inform your client about the demands the writer made and ask him what he wants you to do, tell him that the risk is his.
Do all this in email, not verbal.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26717. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It all depends on the contract.
(Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. This is my amateur understanding of U.S. copyright law.)
If the client was foolish enough to purchase the text from the writer and not insist on a release, then the writer still owns the copyright to the text.
If the writer was working as a salaried employee, then any material produced would be the property of the company. But if the writer is a contract worker, then the writer does indeed own the copyright until and unless it is explicitly released. The writer can release it for a duration, for a specific purpose, or not at all.
In graphic design, when you design something for a client, you write something in the contract explicitly releasing the copyright to the client so that the client can use the finished work. If that finished work is a logo, the rights are unlimited. If the finished work is an illustration, the release might say "You can publish it in your book, but you can't put it on a T-shirt and sell it." The client explicitly does not have the right to any comps or alternate designs which the client didn't use and didn't pay for.
My (again, not-a-lawyer) interpretation of copyright law is similar here. If the writer produced something, even if it was paid for, the writer owns the copyright until the writer releases said copyright. If the client didn't secure the intellectual property rights to the copy, that's not the writer's fault or problem.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads