You can believe that all you want, but unless an employee wrote the code or you have a correct copyright assignment you would almost certainly lose in court.

A correct copyright assignment is not as simple as having a clause in the contract specifying who owns the code, even many lawyers do it incorrectly.

I linked the actual rules in a reply to my post.

The way I dealt with this as a consultant was to incorporate my consulting company. That pretty much shuts down any argument over work for hire before it begins. I still occasionally had someone contest it and lawyer up, but they always backed down pretty quickly as there was zero chance of them winning a suit.

I suppose you could try to do it contract by contract, but not only is that annoying for small contracts, it is also still open to debate as transferring copyright is not as simple as having a line in your contract.

I have 15 mod points to burn (as usual) but nobody else posted a real reference and few people seem to understand how this works... so I thought clarifying it was more important.

I do not really need the karma, but bumping it would probably stop some incorrect speculation based on how people feel it should work.

I was a consultant for a long time, and am now on the other side. I am not a lawyer, but it is my job to understand this, as in addition to anything technical, legal also reports to the CTO.

I would not fire him over asking... I probably would negotiate a lower salary if he wants to own his code, and I would say no if it was a core part of the business (he says they are add-ins, so maybe.)

If it is not a software company they may have no intention of selling it, and may see it as a good thing to be able to cut their costs by more than half and still get the benefits.

It is even more in favor of consultants than that. You need a contract stating it is a work for hire AND to fall under the specifically enumerated list of scenarios which qualify.

Just the contract is not enough, and the consultant will still be found to own the code if it goes to court.

The real way to legally transfer copyright is to sell it to the client after the fact.

Anyway, as there are a couple of people contesting this already I though I would link the actual rules on copyright and work for hire.

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Note that falling under (b) requires that it pass that test AND there be a contract stating so. The tests in (b) have also been found to be exhaustive, so it MUST fall under one of those scenarios.

This means that even in many cases where there is a contract stating that the party paying for the consulting time owns it, in reality the consultant still owns the code. The only common one where code is not owned by the consultant is when the work will become part of another existing work.

The article describes an employee, the post I was responding to was talking about consulting.

These are entirely different scenarios.

Consultants do not fall under work for hire.

If you have one client and they choose your schedule you are not a consultant.

In the absence of a contract the consultant will own the code. All paying for it give you is an implied license, which only includes source code if it is necessary for the normal use of the program (so basically scripting languages or programs where you hard coded enough that you need source code to use it.)

I am a millennial, although on the older side (early 30s) and I definitely see where you are coming from with that rant.

Many people in my age group seem to think the world owes them something. Their parents told them they were special, and they could do anything they want. When something goes wrong it could not possibly be their fault, and someone else should fix it for them. There are plenty of people like that in earlier generations too, but mine seems to be especially full of it.

I admit I was fortunate in many ways. I have parents who care (my mother especially cared enough to hit me or throw things when I annoyed her), I score very well on any test I care to take with very little effort compared to most, and I was born into a middle class US household which was not struggling.

I really think overly protective parents, schools which do not want to leave anyone behind, awards for everyone, college for everyone, etc. have caused a bit of a problem. The thing is that once you leave childhood and enter the real world, nobody really gives a shit about you except you. That is a nasty transition for someone who has been coddled their entire life, and not everyone makes it successfully.

As an adult it is your problem if your life is not going the way you want, and if you want to know who will fix it for you, you should go find a mirror.

People complain about crippling student loans, but they are the ones who signed the loan. They complain that they cannot get a job, but they lack the skills which would make them employable. They complain when they lose the jobs they do get, or are not promoted, but they are the ones on facebook instead of working. They complain that they are fat, but they sit on ass all day, eat mcdonalds, and drink coke. They complain that companies have all the power, but lack the motivation to go start their own. They complain about their huge cell phone bill, but for some reason though it was a good idea to sign up for a couple year loan so they can have an iphone.

I have made my way in the world without too much of an issue (the recession hit me just after forming a new company using my own money, which kind of sucked...but at this point that is over and done.)

I have a decent job because I have useful skills, and control over many aspects of work because I reliably show up and remain calm when things go wrong.
I have no debt because I avoid it when I think it is not in my interest.
I am not fat or diabetic because I eat well and run every morning.

That does not mean that everything has always worked out, despite what may many people think. I do get tired of people saying that I just lucked out, when what is really occurring is that I make changes in my life when I am not satisfied with the way things are going. These can sometimes be major and uncomfortable changes where I need to invest substantial effort and take some risk.

I see so many people saying that somebody needs to fix the problems with our society, but do not even consider that they should be that somebody.

In most fields your employer only really cares that you can do the job.

In the past a degree was an indication that you knew at least the basics of the field you were trying to enter. These days it seems colleges will pass nearly everyone in order to keep collecting tuition, and this has been going on long enough that in many cases industry is on to that scam and no longer wants to pay a premium for the degree.

The government has also been guaranteeing student loans, and preventing discharge in bankruptcy. This means even an indigent 18 year old is seen as good for whatever amount of money they care to borrow. It does not matter to the college, the government, or the loan company that there is no need for the number of people who are graduating in many fields, that some fields do not really produce the amount of income necessary to make good on the loan, or that the graduates coming out are not competent to enter the field they were supposedly trained in.

Despite all of that there are still plenty of jobs available, and if you want a job right now you can pretty much get one in most of the US. Some of these pay quite a bit of money as well: plumbing, electrical work, waste collection, and construction all pay a decent wage. Nursing is also a field which always needs more people.

The real fix is to stop guaranteeing student loans and allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy. If you needed to get approved by a private loan company who could lose the money they invest, it would sort this out in short order.

I hire programmers, and do not consider the degree at all for salary or hiring. I pay in line with demonstrated ability and work experience only. I have in fact noticed that for entry level positions applicants without a degree have a much better chance of actually being able to write a program, and as my time is limited I have begun to prefer that when doing the initial filter on applicants (it is shocking how many CS graduates cannot write even a trivial program, but those claiming to have learned on their own tend to only apply for a job after they know enough to at least do something useful.)

A quick search shows others having a similar problem. I do wish colleges would actually fail those they should, but I guess it is more profitable to take their money (at least it was short term... industry is catching on.)

http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

Where did you go to school? My experience with recent grads is bad enough that I do not give a degree in CS any consideration at all, and you must demonstrate that you know how to program before I will pay a decent salary.

Most cannot write a simple program which prints all odd numbers between 0 and 100 (no internet access, but they get to choose any language.) Programmers do make some money, although I have found that most people graduating with a CS degree are not capable of programming.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”

  Socrates

Might as well actually quote it.

It is also why Apple is basically non-existent in the business world, and is not seen as a suitable platform for anything important.

Third party applications are not always tested against new releases. When they are only the latest version will be tested, and at most software companies I have worked with this usually happens well after the release of the operating system.

That does not even consider companies which no longer exits, or company specific code where the programmer has long since left.

If they foolishly try to change culture to follow apple's disregard for backwards compatibility, it really will be the year of Linux on the desktop.