Amend Your Contract To Allow For Side Projects

The other day Joel Spolsky blogged a wonderful overview of the copyright issues with software companies in terms of its employees. The bottom line is: most companies have an explicit clause in their contracts which states that all intellectual property created by a developer is owned by the employer. This is needed, because the default (in many countries, including mine) is that the creator owns the copyright, regardless of whether they were hired to do it or not. That in turn means that any side project, or in fact any intellectual property that you create while being employed as a developer, is automatically owned by your employer. This isn’t necessarily too bad, as most employers wouldn’t enforce their right, but this has bugged me ever since I started working for software companies. Even though I didn’t know the legal framework of copyright, the ownership clause in my contracts was always something that I felt was wrong. Even though Joel’s explanation makes perfect sense – companies need to protect their products from a random developer suddenly deciding they own the rights to parts of it – I’ve always thought there’s a middle ground. (Note: there is a difference between copyright, patents and trademarks, and the umbrella term “intellectual property” is kind of ambiguous. I may end up using it sloppily, so for a clarification, read here.) California apparently tried to fix this by passing the following law: Anything you do on your own time, with your own equipment, that is not related to your employer’s line of work is yours, even if the contract you signed says otherwise. But this...

Amend Your Contract To Allow For Side Projects

The other day Joel Spolsky blogged a wonderful overview of the copyright issues with software companies in terms of its employees. The bottom line is: most companies have an explicit clause in their contracts which states that all intellectual property created by a developer is owned by the employer. This is needed, because the default (in many countries, including mine) is that the creator owns the copyright, regardless of whether they were hired to do it or not. That in turn means that any side project, or in fact any intellectual property that you create while being employed as a developer, is automatically owned by your employer. This isn’t necessarily too bad, as most employers wouldn’t enforce their right, but this has bugged me ever since I started working for software companies. Even though I didn’t know the legal framework of copyright, the ownership clause in my contracts was always something that I felt was wrong. Even though Joel’s explanation makes perfect sense – companies need to protect their products from a random developer suddenly deciding they own the rights to parts of it – I’ve always thought there’s a middle ground. (Note: there is a difference between copyright, patents and trademarks, and the umbrella term “intellectual property” is kind of ambiguous. I may end up using it sloppily, so for a clarification, read here.) California apparently tried to fix this by passing the following law: Anything you do on your own time, with your own equipment, that is not related to your employer’s line of work is yours, even if the contract you signed says otherwise. But this...