WARNING - Don't get burnt by Waindigo

[cclaerhout]

France has extortion laws too

Yes, and what is the relation to the copyright? I don't get it sorry. If the contractors didn't specify any transfer of copyrights, the creation still belongs to it's creator, no need to mention it, it's the law (in France again).

 

[Digital Doctor]

There isn't extortion going on here.

Now, you both need to come back together, amicably, and work this out. Be prepared to give a little on both ends. You both screwed up. Getter Done!!

Exactly.

.

.

Could you two please work out something and get this done ?

 

[Digital Doctor]

ibaker ...

(1) why do you want to own the code ?
(2) did you specify this from the get go ?

 

[Jon W]

Digital Doctor said: How much is it going to cost to finish this ?


Answer the question as best as possible please.

To meet ibaker's request, how much past the $300 is it going to cost ?

Sorry, wasn't trying to avoid the issue. I am still not entirely clear what ibaker wants. My estimate was based on the add-on as it is on his site at the moment. Not including the extra £40 for the extra work re: Google API v3 (which I thought he agreed to, although have offered to waive this if it was a misunderstanding) but including some additional features that he doesn't currently have on his site at the moment, we are looking at around £108 ($173). Possibly slightly less if I did the absolute minimum (as I also suggested some better ways of implementing these features). I have taken the estimates of time from the conversation posted by ibaker where times were also rounded to the nearest hour.

 

[Digital Doctor]

... cost $500 and he owns the code.

The default option which is used almost all the time, is the coder own the code. That's my impression. It is my understanding that if I want to own the code and re-sell it, I need to pay more. I also think it is my responsibility to say that I want to own the code, so if nothing is mentioned, I wouldn't expect to own the code at the end.

 

[ibaker]

If you pay for something, you own it, unless otherwise stated.

 

[EQnoble]

To be fair, in the first place it was not stated either way and the mod itself was a refactoring of code ibaker already owned for a different system.

An example of this is, I am trying to have a game integrated into xf which I have found a coder who says he is interested. In the end he get's full credit for his work integrating it and obviously payment but the code the game is based on is an open source script.

Using the logic above if the coder modded it to integrate with xf he would now own open source code which is a bit nonsensical in my own opinion.

If it was code I created as a standalone game under the same application of logic, the developer integrating it into xf would now supposedly own the code and functions I created as a standalone script and be able to redistribute my own work without giving me any credit or a cut of income generated as a result of offering another product from their portfolio.

It is impossible for Jon to be creator of the code other that which specifically integrates it with xf as it existed well before the two came into contact, the right to redistribute the addon would be completely up to the person owning the original script unless it was specifically agreed upon otherwise simply because Ian never gave permission for his addon to be redistributed once completed as far as I can tell. Since Jon is not the creator of the entire codebase for the addon it is inherent that he can not distribute it.

 

[Adam Howard]

Yes, and what is the relation to the copyright? I don't get it sorry. If the contractors didn't specify any transfer of copyrights, the creation still belongs to it's creator, no need to mention it, it's the law (in France again).

This is where international law applies. It depends on where iBaker lives and if he is subject to the laws of France.

But again... It was agreed upon and in even in Waindigo own words, that he has not completed the product and is demanding more money and if he doesn't get that money... He will release it publicly under new terms.... ie... Extortion. You're copyright argument is invalid as iBaker paid for the code and the finished product, which has not yet been delivered.

And while under France law Waindigo maybe able to release the product with further features.... The original requested features would still be under the original agreed upon payment. So if Waindigo released version 1 today and it took until version 8 for all those features to finally be made public... iBaker would be entitled to version 1 through 8 under the original payment.

 

[Digital Doctor]

$173

I say $173 is fair, but ibaker owns the code. But that if Waindigo wants to use it himself for another addon, that is fair too.

ibaker - sound fair ?
Can you firm up / double check your requirements ?

 

[Jon W]

It is impossible for Jon to be creator of the code other that which specifically integrates it with xf as it existed well before the two came into contact, the right to redistribute the addon would be completely up to the person owning the original script unless it was specifically agreed upon otherwise simply because Ian never gave permission for his addon to be redistributed once completed as far as I can tell. Since he is not the creator of the entire codebase for the addon he can not distribute it.

No code has been copied from the original add-on. It has been entirely re-written. At one point there was a suggestion that I would copy the code relating to Google Maps, but then we agreed to upgrade to the new Google Maps API v3 so this was completely rewritten also.

This is where international law applies. It depends on where iBaker lives and if he is subject to the laws of France.

My company is based in the UK, but probably similar copyright laws to France.

The original requested features would still be under the original agreed upon payment. So if Waindigo released version 1 today and it took until version 8 for all those features to finally be made public... iBaker would be entitled to version 1 through 8

The 12 months of free upgrades doesn't even begin until everything has been finished.

At no point have I threatened to release it publicly, although it appears ibaker already has anyway.

 

[cclaerhout]

If you pay for something, you own it, unless otherwise stated.

Not in France.

Another thing: it's very hard to estimate the number of hours you will need for the development of an application. Like it or not, that's a fact. Now, I've got a few friends who are working to develop mobile application (not the coding part, the coordination/sales part) for big companies. They told me it's something really hard to do, and to avoid any problems they add extra time (we're not counting in hours there but in weeks). Most of the time, it's also a good way for their company to make money too ("oh you need to change this information on this page... mmm we need 3 days to do that" (it's just a few text & css to modify ) "Ok no problem'". And we're not talking about 300 dollars there.

This example should put in perspective what is qualified here of "extortion".

 

[ibaker]

although it appears ibaker already has anyway.

where?

 

[Jon W]

where?

My bad, I thought you'd linked to it in your post.

 

[Insy]

Since some are lawyers on this forum, it would be nice to post a sample contract that would correct the flaws that ibaker or Waindigo (I do not want to take sides) exploit

 

[Adam Howard]

My company is based in the UK

The 12 months of free upgrades doesn't even begin until everything has been finished.

At no point have I threatened to release it publicly, although it appears ibaker already has anyway.

So do you plan on completing the original agreed upon product, with all the features asked for (exact copy of the original add-on), with the original agreed upon and paid for price, and without demanding more money?

Cause if not. You're in the wrong.

 

[Dodgeboard]

Since some are lawyers on this forum, it would be nice to post a sample contract that would correct the flaws that ibaker or Waindigo (I do not want to take sides) exploit

Copyright to the finished assembled work of code produced by the Developer shall be vested with the Client upon final payment for the project. This ownership is to include, design, photos, graphics, source code, work-up files, text, and any program(s) specifically designed or purchased on behalf of the Client for completion of this project.

All materials developed under this contract and intended for for use or publication remain the property of Developer until such time as final payment for the work described herein has been tendered by Client. At this time, all materials become the property of Client and may be used by them, as desired.

 

[cclaerhout]

This is where international law applies. It depends on where iBaker lives and if he is subject to the laws of France.

But again... It was agreed upon and in even in Waindigo own words, that he has not completed the product and is demanding more money and if he doesn't get that money... He will release it publicly under new terms.... ie... Extortion. You're copyright argument is invalid as iBaker paid for the code and the finished product, which has not yet been delivered.

And while under France law Waindigo maybe able to release the product with further features.... The original requested features would still be under the original agreed upon payment. So if Waindigo released version 1 today and it took until version 8 for all those features to finally be made public... iBaker would be entitled to version 1 through 8 under the original payment.

I wasn't talking for what's happening here (I didn't read the attachment file), I was just reacting to the statement claiming that the buyer owns the property of the creation he bought. That's not true.

Now about the International law... when things must be done seriously best thing to do is to precise inside the contract which country laws will be used.

 

[ibaker]

Again I ask for either a full refund or the product delivered as per the requirements and code ownership is retained by me...and then this matter can come to a close

I am still not entirely clear what ibaker wants.

What you have provided doesn't contain what was asked for, what you saw and quoted on, so I can't use it

 

[Jon W]

But that if Waindigo wants to use it himself for another addon, that is fair too.

That sounds like its going to cause more trouble, not less. This is why I retain ownership of my add-ons because this just raises so many potential issues.

 

[Adam Howard]

I wasn't talking for what's happening here (I didn't read the attachment file), I was just reacting to the statement claiming that the buyer owns the property of the creation he bought. That's not true.

Now about the International law... when things must be done seriously best thing to do is to precise inside the contract which country laws will be used.

A contract would have been nice.

But as there wasn't one and both iBaker & Waindigo have publicly made their stance on it clear. And Waindigo hasn't denied anything (screen shot taken of that).... There was clearly an agreement and after receiving payment Waindigo decided to change that agreement and even further extend it out to include more payments.