Assistance needed. For further details please email me. Basically someone created a well known site then I believe last year he let a company have control of his site while he still remained as editor and he was the only one who kept a particular part of this site updated. Now the new controller has forced out the sites creator but he's now made his own site and intends to make another site similar to what he originally had. Don't want to mention any names yet.
This part of the site is very important to most who are online and they depend on the info supplied. So, can he import the old info that HE created and made to his new site, even if the other company owns his old site? He did everything to it, they never did anything with it, ever. Just doesn't make sense to me why he can't but I do know since they do won it now maybe he can't use the info. Frankly I'd import the info I made and to hell with em, but that's me. He is aware of any legal implications so he's not doing anything yet. Any ideas or thoughts are appreciated.
Need a lawyer's assistance
-
RubberDuckie
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2000 3:38 am
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Im not a lawyer (but I play one on the internet)
It is my understanding that if the idea of this web page was something that he created and thought up while working for that company, then the knowledge and idea are the property of the company (not the individual who came up with it). There are historic examples of this, but if I were working for you as an automobile repairman and to get my job done quicker I came up with an idea for a new hammer. I do not own the rights to that hammer....the company I was working for does (you in this expample).
So in my small knowledge of the law and your friends situation, I would say that the company owns the page and he should get permission.
But I am only a civil engineer....NOT a lawyer! ! !
It is my understanding that if the idea of this web page was something that he created and thought up while working for that company, then the knowledge and idea are the property of the company (not the individual who came up with it). There are historic examples of this, but if I were working for you as an automobile repairman and to get my job done quicker I came up with an idea for a new hammer. I do not own the rights to that hammer....the company I was working for does (you in this expample).
So in my small knowledge of the law and your friends situation, I would say that the company owns the page and he should get permission.
But I am only a civil engineer....NOT a lawyer! ! !
JSTMF
Anything published while owned by the other company is the property of the company, regardless of whether or not they contributed anything to the site. Its sort of like Dave Barry writing columns that appear in papers all over the country. While he wrote the columns, they actually belong to whoever distributes them.
On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
This was started and maintained when ONLY he controlled the site. No one else did till this year. That's why I feel it's still all his info, they have the domain. ONLY he ever did anything to this site but yes he still did maintain it after they took control, but they never added anything or did anything to it.
-
SuperDave
- Senior Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 7:38 pm
- Location: Atlantic City
- Contact:
Given the fact that we're dealing with an entirely new area of intellectual property here, one for which there is no real precise legal precedent, I'd guess that a prudent (I.E. conformist) judge would default to adhering to whatever the letter of the agreement between the interested parties specified. Unless the purchasing party really dropped the ball, that would probably mean the intellectual property would stay in the hands of those owning the site. Any outside contributions (hint) would by nature become the property of those owning the site, because said contributions would be freely given items, not originated by the founder of the site.
That would depend on the fine print of the submission agreement, though, which seems in this case to (rightly) assume as little responsibility as possible, including posession, for any provided content. Therefore the site itself would have a minimum of responsibility (hence posession) for said content and in devolvement the content would remain the property of the submittor.
Frankly, any conflict over such content could be precedent-setting. It begs approaching from that point of view. I find it fascinating.
That would depend on the fine print of the submission agreement, though, which seems in this case to (rightly) assume as little responsibility as possible, including posession, for any provided content. Therefore the site itself would have a minimum of responsibility (hence posession) for said content and in devolvement the content would remain the property of the submittor.
Frankly, any conflict over such content could be precedent-setting. It begs approaching from that point of view. I find it fascinating.
Yes, I have a computer
it's kind of like the issue over the writers for new york times arguing they should get money whenever a previous article is purchased over the net from nyt because its their writing
so because it's your writing i think it's their info (you can't use it) but they can't use it without paying you for it
so i would guess you could demand they pay you for those articles or what not and they can use it, OR you can pay them for it and you can own it and use it, OR they can own it but not use it and neither can you
but i never fuond the outcome of the NYT dispute and what happened
so because it's your writing i think it's their info (you can't use it) but they can't use it without paying you for it
so i would guess you could demand they pay you for those articles or what not and they can use it, OR you can pay them for it and you can own it and use it, OR they can own it but not use it and neither can you
but i never fuond the outcome of the NYT dispute and what happened