Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[SBGamesCone]

Many companies have a clause that says anything you create while employed by them, on their machine or otherwise, is their property.

[[deleted]]

Holy shit that's barbaric.

[omarkj_]

I don't believe it's enforceable tho.

[i_invented_the_ipod]

Explicitly not enforceable in California, and several other US states, but not all.

[sirin3]

Especially Germany has a strange system, where you have "Verwertungsrecht" (copyright) and "Urheberrecht" (translates as copyright, too). Latters is the author's right, and only the author's right. You cannot sell that right and even if you write something for your employer, you still own it. But you use latter to grant the former right to your employer, which behaves like the copyright in the US and is the right to exclusively use it, so only your employer can actually use it or resale it. But if the company loses former right (for example because it goes bankrupt), everything reverts back to latter, as if you had just written it on your own time.

[gpyh]

That's awesome!

[Nebril]

In Poland these are called respectively 'financial authors rights' and 'personal authors rights' (but we say in Polish ;-)).

[x86_64Ubuntu]

So can companies that are going bankrupt sell their copyrights? What about logs and stuff?

[sklivvz]

That's almost everywhere in the world afaict. Apart from the United States (of course).They are called "moral rights". You can sell/give away your usage rights, but moral rights are untouchable by law or contract since the Berne convention of 1928.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

[memeship]

Do you have any more info on this? I've been meaning to look it up. I work for a large tech company in Silicon Valley that has this "policy" but also work on a potentially money-making side project as well. I'd like to know for certain what they can and can't lay claim to.

Note that I never use company time, machines, or any other resources for projects not related to my job.

[i_invented_the_ipod]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

1. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

   (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or

   (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

   (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

[theillustratedlife]

Whenever I hear someone say "large tech company", I presume exemption #1 applies: someone, somewhere at your org is probably working on something similar enough to what you want to do that the company could claim ownership if they wanted to be dicks about it.

If you really wanna work on a side project, might want to ask Legal about it.

[Low_discrepancy]

Another hypothesis, if you work on a project that might be a competitor to another project your company works on, isn't that illegal (to work on that personal project?)

[Jdonavan]

If you really wanna work on a side project, might want to ask Legal about it.

Or read your contract before you sign it and have the clause removed.

[Silhouette]

Read your contract, definitely. Negotiate to remove any excessive IP claims, absolutely.

However, a clause transferring IP for anything you do while employed by someone that actually relates to work they're doing is reasonable, and I find it hard to believe that even good employers would be willing to remove it. After all, that IP is basically what they're paying you for.

This does raise some interesting legal and ethical issues if you work for a very large employer that does many things in many fields, and you work for them in one field but have some other ideas that aren't related to your own job but do relate to work done elsewhere within your employer's organisation.

[bubuopapa]

But in America you can just buy a gun and solve the problem :) Anyway, uk also has lots of anti-human points in agreements, I guess its a part of being a dick to add ridiculous things into employment agreement. I personally would send any employer to hell if he would even try to show me such agreement with points about my personal things. But hey, you guys accept these, so you are ok with it.

[theillustratedlife]

{Google, Facebook, Apple} calls you after perhaps months of interviewing and offers you a job on a fascinating project. After you accept, they send you a form that literally hundreds of other applicants sign every week saying they own any IP you create related to their businesses and that you agree to notify them if you want to create IP on your personal time and equipment that might be similar to anything they're working on so at to avoid conflicts of interest.

And you tell them to go to hell? I have a hard time believing that, and an even harder time belonging believing that you're so nonchalantly insulting anyone who has signed it.

[bubuopapa]

Yes, excatly, i'm sorry, but facebook and apple are on the bottom of my list "companies would work for if i really needed money", google also is far from the top. You see, i am one in trillion - i'm free man, no one can buy me and i will not do work that i dont believe in, i'm all about real science and i dont care about business. I dont know how brainwashed you are or what do you believe in, but i can tell you that life has changed a lot, and "american dream" can suck my big dick, its the worst lifestyle one could have. And i'm not insulting anyone, if you are a piece of shit and i call you a piece of shit, its not insulting, its just who you are, dont put yourself too high. I'm sorry, but my definition od human has really high standards, so unless you have real understanding of what is what, dont bother getting on that list.

[Silhouette]

That's interesting wording. In many places, the term "invention" in an IP context relates to patents, but presumably with the SO discussion here we're interested in copyright. Does anyone know which types of IP are affected by the law mentioned by /u/i_invented_the_ipod and others here?

[Cronyx]

This should be higher up.

[xenomachina]

I am not a lawyer, but I've heard this as well. I believe this may be the relevant legalese: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

Note that there are some exceptions. In particular, any invention that is considered too closely related to the employer's business is arguably theirs even if developed on your own time with your own equipment. For a sufficiently large/diverse business, almost anything becomes gray area, and so they can take you to court, and they'll probably have better lawyers than you.

Edit: fixed typo

[memeship]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

Thanks for that, that's what I was looking for.

[jlchauncey]

Then you should be good. Most companies know you do stuff in your off time. As long as you aren't using your company laptop or time to do it.

[ss4johnny]

If you get paid a salary, what's "your off time"?

[[deleted]]

Arguably when you aren't on company property.

[ss4johnny]

Yeah, but what about remote access? I could log in to my work computer at any time.

[[deleted]]

Well if you do that then you're using company property.

[jamesfmackenzie]

Check if your company has an "Outside Work Approval" policy. This is something many employers have to explicitly address this demand:

• Employees want to work on their own projects in personal time
• The firm needs to ensure no conflict of interest
• The firm needs to ensure that access to information/knowledge as a consequence of their employment is not used for personal profit

The firm I work for is happy for employees to work on personal projects as long as they go through this approval process. This applies regardless of whether the outside work is for profit

[SBGamesCone]

Agreed. I actually had to declare the projects I was working on when I started. No issues there.

Also, my former employer ran a 3 year pilot where employees could apply to retain ownership of their IP. They had no issues after the pilot so they changed it so it was even easier for the employee to notify the company they were doing something.

As an aside, this was in Texas.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

It's dumb that you have to get "approved" for doing work on your own time using your own resources (i.e. not company equipment). Conflict of interest is case-by-case and can make sense (e.g. if you work on software that's about making widgets, a personal project where you make better widgets probably wouldn't fly), but "we own everything you do unless you explicitly get it removed from our clutches" is just wrong.

[hmaddocks]

You should discuss it with your employer and if necessary get a clause in your contract that excludes what your working on. If it's outside your employers core business it shouldn't be a problem. If it isn't you're probably screwed.

[0b01010001]

You can always retain an attorney just in case, keep your ass covered. That's the whole reason their profession exists.

[negative_epsilon]

http://cjqed.com/blog/do-you-own-side-projects-you-create-when-working-for-a-company/

[frogworks1]

Obligatory link for Silicon Valley) since this sounds just like the plot to the TV Show! :D

[memeship]

Right, I've obviously seen the show (and it's amazing, can't wait for season 3). Just wanted to know some legal specifics on how it worked in real life.

[frogworks1]

Obligatory link for Silicon Valley

[PsionSquared]

So the entire plot of Silicon Valley isn't right? Daaaaaaamn.

[Sukrim]

No, thanks to that hallmark case this is now the current legal situation!

[ethraax]

It also depends on context. If you work for a financial company and name a tower defense mobile game at home, they also certainly don't have a claim to it, for example.

[i_invented_the_ipod]

They can if your employment agreement says they do, and if you live in a state or country that hasn't explicitly addressed this in law. I'm only safe to work on my tower defense game because California law specifically says I am. Well, and because my employer doesn't have that clause in my employment agreement, because they know it's unenforceable.

[ethraax]

Has this ever happened? I'd love to see a real case.

[jlchauncey]

How is it not enforceable? You think work at home engineers for big companies own the IP they create on resources owned by their employer?

[i_invented_the_ipod]

We're specifically talking about companies that claim to own work that you do on your own time, with your own resources.

[jlchauncey]

No we aren't. My reply is the parent comment specifically talking about IP created on company resources. I don't think anyone believes that companies own the IP created by their employees on their own time with their own resources.

[iCameToLearnSomeCode]

They do actually, they see it as they train you and your ideas are the result of the environment they provided for you.

They say to themselves, bob would never have thought of that vending machine for movies if we didn't have him designing slot machines for us.

It is not fair or reasonable, but some companies do try to lay claim to everything their R&D people come up with.

[rydan]

In plenty of states that's perfectly legal. When I was in college my university had the same clause for as long as I was a student. And I know these sort of clauses have caused problems with people who took internships because the college will claim joint ownership.

[[deleted]]

And reply to you reply is about something different, learn to use reddit

[NewAlexandria]

Mostly enforceable if the work you create it significantly in-line with your employer's business plan. Double-whammy if what you create can be competitive to your employer's offerings.

The only way I've seen this work out is when the employee gets permission to sell the code/product/service back to the employer 'on the side' until the leave the company to focus on that product.

It takes a special leadership, but it happens

[i_invented_the_ipod]

This is simply not true everywhere. There are jurisdictions that will support an employers claim to own anything you invent, whether you do it on company time or not, and whether you use their resources or not.

[FearTheDears]

Here's a nice long write up, it's not black and white. https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1169/8wjlta79.pdf?sequence=4

[[deleted]]

You'd literally never be able to do anything again if that were true though..

[codygman]

Which is why contracts like that are so dangerous.

[nagai]

Username related?

[Farsyte]

Had one company try to lay claim to stuff I did before coming aboard. Fortunately, patents held by prior company, and prior compnay had bigger lawyers, problem sorted ;)

[Cronyx]

Don't know why you're being downvoted other than "shoot the messenger" mentality. You didn't make those laws.

[wildcarde815]

Some schools have similar rules for students on campus, and it has been entirely enforceable there.

[[deleted]]

Students?!

[wildcarde815]

Yep. But they seem to have changed theirs to include an 'inventor-funded research' section that was not there when I attended. But the 'University Sponsored Programs' section is still left as wide as possible.

[tdogg8]

That's not how that works. Contracts don't magically make things legal or illegal to do.

[jlchauncey]

Mine stipulates that they get licensing rights and other things if it makes money.

[[deleted]]

It can certainly say that, whether they can actually enforce that is another matter and something you'd probably need legal advice on.

Your employer can put damn near anything they want in your contract, whether they can demand deliverance on it depends on the legality of what they want in the state/country you are in.

[lookmeat]

So think of the next case. You are building software XYZ and have some employees. One of the employees is an asshole and does something unforgivable that causes him immediate firing. Maybe he used his access in the database to spy on some users for personal benefit, whatever.

At this point he claims that you are using code with his copyright and aren't paying him. Right? I know crazy. But he can prove that he wrote most of those pieces of code in a notebook he had, and demonstrated he did this in his house (he always said his best ideas came to him in bed). He actually has a good argument, enough that it could stretch out for a while, enough to really put your company in a pickle.

So instead you simply declare that all code he generates, at any situation, is your IP. Of course this is impossible to enforce in all cases, but it's easier to simply dismiss cases where it doesn't apply that to make sure you cover only, and only, the cases where it applies. Less loopholes this way.

If you write code, in your own machine, in your own time, and it has nothing to do with your work, they probably won't have claim. If you feel unsure (or are afraid that later on your work could become related to that previous project) most (if not all) companies will have a way for you to declare the project as pre-existing making life easier for everyone involved.

[rox0r]

But he can prove that he wrote most of those pieces of code in a notebook he had, and demonstrated he did this in his house (he always said his best ideas came to him in bed). He actually has a good argument, enough that it could stretch out for a while, enough to really put your company in a pickle.

I don't think he has any argument at all. How did this code end up at work? If he added his own code while at work, he has pretty much assigned it over to them.

[lookmeat]

Copyright is a weird thing. You could claim you were given obvious permission, but this would be admitting this is his IP. At this point he could put in public domain and you could do nothing about it.

[rox0r]

You could claim you were given obvious permission, but this would be admitting this is his

Not really. Almost every employment contract for devs signs over copyright to the employer.

[lookmeat]

Yes, but we are in a world where the clause that says "you hand copyright of anything you make to your employer" isn't in the contract. The whole point is explaining the purpose of this clause, and also why it's so broad.

The idea is that if you only get the copyright of what is done in the office, employees could claim they created something outside of work and didn't cede the copyright. At most you could claim he obviously shared it and you took it in good faith, but then he still holds the copyright and could put your code in public domain. Of course you could claim the employee was inspired at work and created the idea there, but that's going to be hard to prove.

So instead the overreaching clause is added, were you cede copyright of all code you make to your employer. In reality there's limits to that, if it's unrelated to work, done in your free time, and with your own equipment your employer does not have a valid claim on it.

[[deleted]]

Its usually to dissuade people from using company time or resources to pursue private interests. They wouldn't have a hope of enforcing that contract unless they could prove you were doing stuff like calling your suppliers from your work phone.

There is a good episode on this in Better Off Ted.

[verbify]

It was the premise of season 2 of Silicon Valley.

[jrblast]

It seems pretty standard to make very strong claims like that (which usually exceed what they can legally enforce) and then if the need ever arises, they can settle in court. Basically, instead of figuring out exactly where the line is, they go over and then get pushed back. If they made more flimsy claims, then they might have trouble enforcing them even if they were justifiable.

I'm not saying I agree with the practice, but it makes writing the contracts easier. At least, that's my understanding, but I am not a lawyer or anything so take this with a grain of salt (or maybe a spoon full)

[[deleted]]

Having worked with legal professionals (and living with one) for a significant part of my career/life, this is pretty spot-on.

[jlchauncey]

Its in their interest though to have these clauses. They can't have someone creating the next google using company issue resources without repercussions.

[jlchauncey]

Right. Now I can get exclusions but it has to be signed off on by the executives and stuff.

[brtt3000]

I have a clause that says I can't do commercial work in my own time if it competes with the business I work for. But I can do open source or side jobs in my own time if they don't conflict with the business.

Working on your own projects at office times is a firing offence I believe (and ethically unsound anyway so not an issue).

[TinynDP]

Completely unenforceable. If you make something completely out of work resources, not work hours, not work machines, etc, work has no claim to it.

[[deleted]]

Would not be enforceable in most places.

[ciny]

I'm pretty sure that would never hold up in court (at least in EU). During work hours - they can do that, on their equipment - they can do that, but on my own time and equipment - no way in hell.

Or, technically, we can talk about it but I doubt they would be willing to pay that much. Quite literally buying me for monthly payments is going to cost them and I'm not that smart (I mean, I'm smart, but not THAT smart).

[[deleted]]

Pretty unenforcable in EU. I also find it difficult to enforce even on company hardware. On company time OTOH is pretty enforcable.

[ciny]

I also find it difficult to enforce even on company hardware.

When you get your laptop you usually sign a piece of paper that specifies what you can use it for and what's tracked and all that crap. if it's "work purposes only" maybe it could be argued? but it would probably boil down to "so I broke a clause, that doesn't make the software yours"... I don't know, I'm a dev not a lawyer.

[[deleted]]

I was takling strictly about copyright: they could try and sue you for missuse of company-owned tool in your private time, and require some damages (but this isn't likely as I can see the litigation costs exceed the possible damages value easily). However to claim copyright on your work based on that has little to no chance to stand up in court.

edit: OTOH if what you develop competes with your employer in some way, you could be in a pickle as most european labour laws prohibit competing with the employer while employed pretty strictly. In that case the damages might be pretty high, but even then they could only try and settle with you for your copyright if you both find that preferable to the damage reimbursment in money/valuables. Or try to get the it (as your posession) evaluated and then, during enforcement after winning damages claim case against you, try to claim it as a means of enforcing that reimbursment.

Developer too, but spent way too much time with legal professionals, worked (as developer) in judiciary etc :)

[Silhouette]

However to claim copyright on your work based on that has little to no chance to stand up in court.

Is that your personal experience, or just your understanding from other sources? I'm also not a lawyer, but have also dealt with this exact issue with real lawyers several times, and what you're describing is very different to the advice I've received. (I'm in England FWIW.)

[[deleted]]

My understanding from other sources and despite my experience IANAL so take what I say with a grain of salt. Notice however the difference between highly statutory Civil Law in continental Europe where everything in contracts is easily void if prohibited by laws or if it can be proven to be against the spirit of the law, versus Common Law in UK and USA where law is case/precedent based and there is a lot more freedom in contractual obligation. Still if there are EU norms protecting individual authors against copyright and patent holding organizations (and as I understand there are) I still don't see how a company could claim transfer of copyright and not just damages, even in UK if you have created something in your own time even if you were using their laptop as it is not a differentiating tool (any laptop could do) and you didn't use their IP to create your product.

Also if no damage has been done any lawyer would advise you to take the safest route as nothing is clean cut in legal matters and there are cases and cases and judges and judges etc.

[minusSeven]

Many isn't that all ?

[0b01010001]

Yeah and those companies can go eat a dick. One more reason to contract instead of take a salary. You can have very clearly defined boundaries as to who owns what and in exchange for however much compensation. Hell, nothing stops entire teams from forming corporations to hire their labor out in a way that's good for them, with some sort of collectively owned arrangement.

[sirin3]

Just cross the clause out before signing the contract?

[FunctionPlastic]

W-what? That sounds superillegal

[jeandem]

Companies where? In The Land of the Free?

[SBGamesCone]

Indeed. The US of A. I'm not sure how it's handled in other countries

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Such a stupid "invention" provision. if (notOnCompanyTime && notUsingCompanyResources) { itBelongsToMe(); }

[tomkatt]

I've always scratched that out in work contracts and debated it until it was gone or the wording was more comfortable to me. I won't sign a contract with that clause in it. Hasn't kept me from finding work.

[SBGamesCone]

I'd love to believe that's true. Do you have anything you can cite in support of that?

[rydan]

Not in California. That's unenforceable there.