Copyright vs Exclusive License?

Posted by Cliff on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:21AM from the what-rights-do-you-have-if-you-paid-for-the-development dept.

cdanzig asks: "My company recently hired a development house to do some contract work for us. They did great work, but they are claiming that they now own the copyright on the code and are issuing us a permanent and exclusive license. My bosses are concerned that this will hamper our ability to make changes to the code or prevent us form being able to claim the software as a company asset. What is expected protocol between a client and a development house? What is the long-term difference between owning a copyright and owning an exclusive license? If we paid for the development of the code, is it fair for us to demand ownership?"

1 of 95 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not enough information. by amper · 2007-04-26 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

You didn't specify the terms of the license agreement. It's great that it's permanent and exclusive, but if you want the copyright transferred to your company, be prepared to pay for that privilege. This is a fairly common practice.

In increasing order of expected value:

1. Temporary, non-exclusive right
2. Permanent, non-exclusive right or temporary, exclusive right
3. Permanent, exclusive right
4. Copyright transfer

The author has the right to expect greater compensation for greater value delivered. Perhaps you should try to negotiate a transfer agreement before you get too up in arms about this matter.