Comment Re:It's even sillier than that. (Score 1) 198
A *lot* depends on the original contract on ownership of the final product (as done at the end of the contact). If the original contract had Company X owning the rights to the site, then they own any derived work from that work, even if implemented differently. Let's not confuse the underlying technologies with the 'look and feel' content.
I recall a case where a sculpter sued a photographer over a picture of a piece (a sculpture of some people on a bench.) The claim was that the photographer had photographed a sculpture and had sold prints of it (with no royalties to the original artist.) The original artist won. It was a copyrighted material, and thus could only be copied by the original artist. The photographs were enabled by re-using the original artwork, though the pictures actually contained no material other than 'the look' of the sculpture.
If the original work belonged to the contracted company, they have rights to it. If the contacted company signed over the rights then they have no leg to stand on.
Similer aspect with photograhers. They are contacted to take pictures (their artistic skill is used) for a company or people (the subject matter involved) who owns the negatives... When not outlined in the contract, this gets very sticky as both sides have good claim (my skill vs my image.)
There must be some reason for this company to feel they have rights to sue. It hinges on their contract for the work they supplied. If they were to keep control of the web site and maintain it then I can see how a reworking of their original work in violation of copyright law. Who was to be the 'owner' of the site? The builder, or the buyer? If it's the buyer ("build me my site") you're in the clear. If it's the buyer ("build me one of your sites") your work may have infringed on their rights. If the owner was not defined ("lets build a site") then welcome to court.
I recall a case where a sculpter sued a photographer over a picture of a piece (a sculpture of some people on a bench.) The claim was that the photographer had photographed a sculpture and had sold prints of it (with no royalties to the original artist.) The original artist won. It was a copyrighted material, and thus could only be copied by the original artist. The photographs were enabled by re-using the original artwork, though the pictures actually contained no material other than 'the look' of the sculpture.
If the original work belonged to the contracted company, they have rights to it. If the contacted company signed over the rights then they have no leg to stand on.
Similer aspect with photograhers. They are contacted to take pictures (their artistic skill is used) for a company or people (the subject matter involved) who owns the negatives... When not outlined in the contract, this gets very sticky as both sides have good claim (my skill vs my image.)
There must be some reason for this company to feel they have rights to sue. It hinges on their contract for the work they supplied. If they were to keep control of the web site and maintain it then I can see how a reworking of their original work in violation of copyright law. Who was to be the 'owner' of the site? The builder, or the buyer? If it's the buyer ("build me my site") you're in the clear. If it's the buyer ("build me one of your sites") your work may have infringed on their rights. If the owner was not defined ("lets build a site") then welcome to court.
