On 27 Aug, 21:07, Mary Sunshine <fsrvi...@gmail.com> wrote:


First of all, why are you asking this and what do you hope to achieve
by it?

It's a big mistake to go anywhere near the law without first
understanding what you're after. What are the possible outcomes?
What's likely? Which of these are you trying to achieve? Going to law
from some airy-fairy idea of "justice" or "fair play" is a recipe for
disaster!

AIUI, the author was not previously employed by the Arts Council, did
some work that benefitted them (either "for them" or that was later
"used by them"), they are now employed by them.

There are two things to be fought over here: "Credit" for having done
some work ("moral rights", a concept that's barely recognised in UK
law) and "copyright", the right to control the future use of this
content. The two are really separate - there's no reason why the site
can't say "All work was done by R.J. Author, all is now copyright of
the Arts Council" and R.J. Author may contine to cite the site as a
portfolio example of their work, perhaps to further their career as a
web designer.

Most copyright is commercially worthless. Most copyright is only of
interest to one possible user, and they often own it anyway. The site
(fine though it is) is of such specialised application that it has no
re-sale value to any other body. It's not the ownership of a Harry
Potter manuscript, it's not a licence to print money. Copyright is
most commonly like this, it's only of use to one body and such
copyright is only "valuable" if it's owned by someone else (such as a
bespoke web design house) looking to sell it to them.

Now in this case, either: the designer has already granted a licence
to the AC to use their work (but the designer retained copyright). Or,
the AC already had such control over the copyright because of how the
work was originally done for them. Possibly (and I think not in this
case) the designer may have owned the copyright at one point, then
transferred it.

So which one of these is it? And, given the new terms of employment,
and the fact they didn't raise this issue during recruitment, what do
they expect to gain by trying to change things now?

If they want credit (few would argue with that), then have them assign
the copyright, subject to an agreed wording that indicates the moral
rights and credits them appropriately.

If they want to either retain or sell the copyright, then I'd advise
caution. It's not worth much. Its worth nothing on the open market. It
was a worthwhile bargaining factor during recruitment (and should have
been sold then), but _now_ it's an embarassment. If they either won't
part with it or demand previously undiscussed payment for it, then any
sensible employer is going to see that as a major turn-around and act
of disloyalty by their new employee. It's just hard to see any way
that a negotiation starting on that basis can have any useful
outcome! They're likely to find themselves offered a derisory "Take
it or leave it" £5 for the content copyright and permanently blight
their ongoing employment prospects.


> We are wondering, by rights, who owns this website?

By "website" do you mean the location (i.e. domain name) or the
content ? Presumably the content, but rememebr that there is a
distinction to be made.

UK copyright law is fairly clear on this as regards content, but the
interpretation gets awkward. If it's a "work for hire", then copyright
was transferred immediately to the hirer by default. Whether it was
"work for hire" or not is the question here, not the copyright itself.
Volunteers certainly can be construed as such, it's a question of
their engagement and direction in producing the work. If they were an
"unpaid worker" then they certainly were. If they produced the work as
an independent agent and merely offered the results to the Arts
Council as a philanthropic gesture, then they weren't. Things like
provision of office space and the computers used to design it can also
come into play.

> My sense of fair play tells me that my friend, who is the author, and
> who created it totally as a volunteer would, or should (at least), own
> it. I can see no reason at all why the Arts Council would own it.

"Who created it" is simply irrelevant for UK law, as is the question
of payment. Nor is "fair play" of any value in the UK legal system.

> *Can* a website be purchased? or sold? Can she sell this website, i.e.
> the design, to the Arts Council?

Certainly. However the market for such targetted websites is usually
limited to one potential customer, who is well aware of this. If it's
a post facto negotiation, they're likely to make a trivially low offer
knowing that it's still the best you'll get.

> The domain name, of course, is the property of the Arts Council,

Actually it isn't, as .com and UK domain names aren't sold, merely
licensed. They own a limited-time renewable licence to it, no more.
However they do have the (valuable) right to keep renewing it.


> If my friend puts the Copyright thing on the website, does that
> thereby make it the property of the Arts Council?

Declarations mean nothing one way or the other, except in this case
where they would be seen as a strong admission that the author did not
have any claim to make over owning the copyright. Take specific legal
advice on this case before doing so.

Useful books here (UK standard undergrad texts, any library) are:
"Blackstone's Guide to the Trade Marks Act 1994"
Bainbridge's "Introduction to Computer Law"