Copywriter Rights!
Hi,
My name is Rob, long-time reader Adland, first time poster. I have a question about copywriter rights when it comes to websites and spec work....
Last week, my \"nosy and way too much free time on her hands\" client used google.com to do a search on her product. She found my personal website and spec work. She told me that her company owns the work and \"I had no right\" to show it on the web. The spineless account person told me that my work is the property of the client and I had to take it off immediately.
Is this true? Or can I hire Jacoby & Meyers to sue my client*s ass? mad
Robblink
« previous ¦ Advertising doesnt work
Hey Robbilinkiewinkie? :P
Replies sent to me by people from the adlist go a little like this
---------------------------------------------
Shocking -- I know! (DISCLAIMER I am NOT A LAWYER, so this e-mail should
not be construed as legal advice. But I've dealt with this issue in the
past, and this is what I know.)
First -- if Company A hires Agency/Freelace/Whatever B to do a work, and
that work is never published, because Company A paid Whatever B to produce
it, the copyright lies with Company A.
However, if Whatever B did the work on its own (as a spec, for example)
and
it happened that the spec used Company A as the subject, and Company A
never paid Whatever B to produce it, then the ownership lies with Whatever
B.
If Company A publicly airs the spot in question, it becomes Fair Use, so
you can use it all you want, and even though Company A still holds the
copyright, the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act applies and tells
Company A to screw off (unless your use of the spot is diluting their
ability to sell the spot, or something...). There are limitations to Fair
Use, but I won't get into that here.
In this case, an un-aired spot remains the private property of the company
who originally paid for the work done on the spot.
Though, in the post, they say that the work was spec, and if it WAS NOT
paid for by the company in question, then the copywriter is free to post
it, as he owns the copyrights. However, there may be an issue of
TRADEMARK
infringement, which is much stricter than copyright in the fair-use realm,
and if they say \"Hey, you are diluting our trademark (brand, logo,
whatever) by public presenting that spec ad (which you DO own the
copyright
to). Take it down.\" And you just say \"OK, I will.\" and do so. Because
you'll lose.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and neither is anyone whom I might be
related
to. But I have dealt a lot with this issue.
Peter
------------- next one --------------
Reply from Steve;
A good client should understand the difference between
what they are legally entitled to do versus what they
should do. If the client is to have a healthy ongoing
relationship with the team, making requests like this
certainly won't help. It creates bad blood.
I find it hard to believe that the appearance of an
unapproved ad on a portfolio site would dilute any
brand value for the client (most unapproved,
portfolio-worthy ads that I've seen would do the
opposite). However, their brand is their property and
if it something - legal or otherwise - is sending out
the wrong messages about it, they have every right to
ask that it not appear.
Fortunately, I think most clients are naive to the
whole portfolio process.
_S
so - if the client did not pay production costs in order to execute the ads you had on your site and then later decide to pull them/not show them, they are still your ads, not theirs.
Wouldn't mind some other input on this topic myself, actually. :D