Timeline for If an app doesn't have a licence, can anyone use it in anyway?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2019 at 9:32 | vote | accept | JamesJay | ||
| Sep 12, 2017 at 4:45 | comment | added | user6726 | That's pretty much what I said: it's about what's in the contract specifically says, not what some guy claims. Also, if B is the employer of A, he has copyright that would otherwise go to A only for stuff done within the scope of A's employment: not "everything he writes, because he's an employee". | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 4:35 | comment | added | Upnorth | Under US copyright law, B, the client, would only own the copyright if the contract for independent works were a proper "work for hire" agreement. Just asserting it's a "work for hire" isn't sufficient. The work must also qualify as one of the nine statutory types of works. If B is the employer of A, then it doesn't matter: all copyright of A's works done for B automatically belong to B, as the "legal author". 17 USC §§ 101, 201. | |
| Sep 11, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | user6726 | If the contract specifically says A creates the app for B, then B actually owns the copyright. But otherwise, there may be an implied license, and that can be more complex legally. People in that situation have been sued for infringement and have successfully defended themselves on the basis of an implied license, but that's never better than having an explicit license. | |
| Sep 11, 2017 at 7:56 | comment | added | JamesJay | If you get a contract to build an app, is it implied the person hiring you has a license to use it or must you explicitly grant them one? | |
| Sep 10, 2017 at 19:13 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |