What should a contract contain to protect an employees rights to work on unrelated side projects in their free time? What should a contract contain to protect an employees rights to work on unrelated side projects in their free time? Assume UK employment law.
It should contain one of the following two clauses: A clause that explicitly lists all of the side projects you are working on at the point of employment, that will not be transferred to the employer's ownership under Section 11 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 (&quot;the Act&quot;) which states (1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions. (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary. (3) This section does not apply to Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (see sections 163 and 165) or to copyright which subsists by virtue of section 168 (copyright of certain international organisations). This would mean that your existing side projects are protected, but any future side projects would transfer to your employer under S11(2). This might be fine if you don't intend on doing any more side projects during your employment and simply want to protect your existing work. A clause that explicitly rejects S11(2) of the Act in relation to work undertaken outside of your employment and not on company resources, that is specifically defined as &quot;side projects&quot; (including a non-exhaustive list of examples) and the rebuttable presumption that any such work is outside S11(2) unless proven to the civil standard in a court of law. This provides balance to both sides: the employee is free to pursue their side projects outside of work, but in the event that they work on them in company time and on company resources (e.g. a laptop) the employer is free to rebut that presumption in court and have the work transferred to them. Generally, the second clause seems to be what most employees would want in a contract to protect their side projects. Whether it can successfully be inserted depends on the negotiation between both sides. Most reasonable employers would not refuse it. The leading case on the matter of S11(2) is Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1770 (02 December 2021) which future courts of first instance are presently bound to follow, unless the Supreme Court issues a different decision. What does &quot;in the course of employment&quot; mean? Per Penhallurick mentioned above, &quot;in the course of employment&quot; is generally held to mean doing things that you are paid for as part of your employment. For example, if you are a baker and you write a novel in your free time, it is clear that has nothing to do with your employment: you are not being paid by the bakery to write novels. However, if you were to write a baking cookbook that incorporated recipes that you developed at the bakery, that could be held to be done &quot;in the course of employment&quot; because the bakery could argue that you are paid to develop new recipes for them. The development of side projects in relation to software development is fraught with peril. A lot of employers will try and advance the argument that, although you did not develop the work using company resources and time, your work is still &quot;connected&quot; to the area they operate in. Well known examples of this include Google asserting ownership of software development side projects that, on the surface of it, aren't done on company time and resources and don't appear to have been done &quot;in the course of employment&quot; as you are not being paid specifically to work on, e.g. game development when you are employed as a website backend engineer. If the employer can present enough evidence that what you are/were working on is &quot;connected&quot; to their business in some fashion, that is (at present, in England and Wales) sufficient for ownership to transfer to them under S11(2) even if the work wasn't done in company time and/or using company resources. An example of a clause that seeks to protect side projects Both Parties agree that Section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (&quot;the Act&quot;) does not apply to any and all Side Projects started prior to the commencement of employment. Both Parties also agree that S11(2) of the Act does not apply to any and all Side Projects started after the commencement of employment, specifically where said Side Projects are unrelated to the Employer's business of area of business. For the avoidance of doubt, &quot;unrelated&quot; has the ordinary meaning that a reasonable person would assign to it. For example, since the Employer operates in area of business, a Side Project regarding the development of an online video game is clearly unrelated to the Employer's business. This ex post presumption is rebuttable on the provision of clear and compelling evidence presented in a competent and validly constituted court of law in England and Wales that the Side Project was developed on company time and/or using company resources (e.g. a laptop) or that it validly infringes upon a business domain the Employer operates in. Both Parties agree that it will not be sufficient to adduce that the Employer &quot;could&quot; seek to operate in the Side Project's domain. For ownership to transfer under S11(2) of the Act, the Employer must demonstrate that they operated in that domain prior to the creation of the Side Project or that the Side Project has taken advantage of company resources that were not legitimately available outside of the company. For example, confidential company know-how that is specific to the Employer and not an industry standard or widely known thing. For the avoidance of doubt, use of open-source software (used in compliance with the licence and regardless of whether that software was created, released, or maintained by the Employer or someone else) does not constitute taking advantage of company resources. The Employer agrees to pay the Employee a sum of special damages assessed and awarded appropriately by a court of law in England and Wales for any attempt to subvert this clause or sue the Employee for a Side Project contrary to this clause. In the alternative, at the Employee's absolute discretion, a permanent injunction enforcing this clause may be awarded against the Employer.
I wrote a letter to the Eclipse Foundation. The consultant pointed me to section 5 in their FAQ. My case falls under the term "linking". He warned that he isn't a lawyer, but offered the following short answer: The Eclipse Foundation does not consider linking with EPL content to be a derivative work and so you are not required to disclose your source code.
Your premise is a little off, which changes the question somewhat. The actual clause in the 2016 Junior Doctors contract Section 3 (52) states: Where a doctor intends to undertake hours of paid work as a locum, additional to the hours set out in the work schedule, the doctor must initially offer such additional hours of work to the service of the NHS via an NHS staff bank of their choosing. The requirement to offer such service is limited to work commensurate with the grade and competencies of the doctor rather than work at a lower grade than the doctor is currently employed to work at. Additional work, such as; event and expedition medicine, work for medical charities, non-profits, humanitarian and similar organisations, or sports and exercise medicine do not fall under the scope of additional work as a locum. (note that 'locum' has a standard definition of 'a person who stands in temporarily for someone else of the same profession, especially a cleric or doctor' but is not defined in the contract itself - its a well known term that does not require further definition, but it plays an important part in your question) So, a few things from that section: Where a doctor intends to undertake hours of paid work as a locum This immediately sets limits on what the clause means - the intention is to limit locum work, not general work. The requirement to offer such service is limited to work commensurate with the grade and competencies of the doctor rather than work at a lower grade than the doctor is currently employed to work at A FY2 or later junior doctor can go elsewhere to work as a house officer if they cannot find work as a senior house officer, again restricting the clause to similar working conditions and not general work. This is very very similar to any company putting a non-compete in their contract for, say, a software developer - you need the companies permission to go do contract work for another software company for example. To specifically talk to your point about being a gardener, this clause does not cover that because the employee is not acting as a locum in their professional capacity at that point. The intention of this clause is to fill the gaps in the NHS staffing plan caused by 11 years of mismanagement and underfunding - no longer can an in-contract doctor or nurse work their 38 hour rota and then go fill a lucrative shift with a private hospital, they must offer any hours under 48 to the NHS via the employee bank - this means the bank can pay minimal wages to cover shifts it had to pay locums a lot more to cover before 2016.
Your client is confused about how copyright law works (at least in the United States and virtually every other country I've ever heard about copyright in). If I were guessing, they read something like this from the United States Copyright Office: The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party. and figured that because it's a derivative work, the copyright only covers the additions and changes they make, and there's no copyright protection for the original work. This misunderstands the law: the original work still has its own copyright (assuming it hasn't expired), and permission from the holder of the copyright on the original work is required to create that derivative work in the first place*. The copyright on the derivative work is separate—that is, both copyrights exist in parallel. * Some exceptions, such as fair use, exist, but would be unlikely to apply to the situation you describe.
Assumptions Let us assume that the code involved was created during the period of employment, was within the scope of that employment, and was validly work-made-for-hire (WFH). In that case, the code copyright is owned by the former employer.dn the person who wrote it has no more rights than a random stranger would. I am also going to assume US law. Ownership of Ideas Who owns the ideas, the knowledge of how these libraries work? No one does. In the absence of a patent, no one ever &quot;owns&quot; an idea. ]17 USC 102(b)](https://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102) provides: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Derivative Works Copyright law does prohibit anyone making a derivative work from a work protected by copyright without the permission of the owner. A derivative work is one &quot;based on&quot; the source work. The classic case is a translation. Exactly when a piece of software is a derivative work of another is fact-dependent. Bu several things are clear. If the source work is trivial and obvious, ther may not be sufficient &quot;originality&quot; for the source work to be protected by copyright at all. If the source work is not protected by a valid copyright, nothing is a derivative work of it. A &quot;hello world&quot; program, for example, is probably not original enough for any copyright. A straight-forward implementation of a basic algorithm like quicksort is probably not original enough, either. If there is only one way, or only a small number of ways, to express the ideas of the source work, the merger doctrine applies. This means that the expression of the work is merged into the idea, leaving the expression unprotected. When the merger doctrine applies, there is, in effect, no copyright. If a work copies ideas from a source, but none of its particular expression of those ideas, the result is not a derivative work, and is not an infringement of copyright. If a work is definitive, but is also a fair use of the source work, it is not an infringement. The usual four-factor fir use analysis must be made to determine this. In particular, if a work is highly transformative, it is likey to be found to be a fair use. Issues from the Question What if the new code (presumably, in the case of something simple) comes out exactly the same (even if I rewrite it without looking)? That Rather suggests that the work was too trivial to be original enough to have copyright protection at all, or else that there are only a few ways to express the idea, and the merger doctrine applies. But if neither o those were true, this might be an infringement. [* To be coninued*]
I would recommend talking to an adult person in HR. I'm quite sure they will notice that what your manager wants to do is more than dodgy, and doing something dodgy may be in the interest of your manager, but not in the interest of the company. The best thing is to go to HR, acting as if a mistake has been made, and point out to them what your start date was, and that the new contract has the incorrect starting date, and they need to fix this mistake or you can't sign the contract. If they insist you sign it, then you DON'T sign it. If they say you will be fired if you don't sign it, then you tell them that in that case you would get legal advice. BTW. You definitely don't sign this as it is. PS. This answer was posted on workplace.stackexchange, not law.stackexchange, so please don't complain if there is no legal content.
Based on the contract language quoted in the question, and the facts stated there, it would seem that the employee owns the copyright on the software. It would seem that the software was not created &quot;during the course of employment.&quot; However, when the employee offers it to the employer free of charge, the employer may well want to own the copyright and any other related IP. The employer might want the employee to sign an agreement transferring the copyright. Or the employer might simply treat the software as belonging to the employer. Asserting and enforcing the copyright against the employer might be difficult. Insisting on even a token payment would help establish thst the copyright belongs to the employee, or gettign the employer to sign an acknowledgement of the ewmployee's copyright would have a similar, bnt even stronger effect.
Yes, but maybe no. In many state universities that I am familiar with, there are contractual guarantees that exempt regular academic staff from the &quot;we pwn all your stuff&quot; rule, which does not extend to other staff. (I had to toss back a contract for subcontracted work once because they asserted automatic ownership of copyright). It depends on your contract, entirely. Which, if it is non-existent, is a bit problematic. Their claim would be based on &quot;work for hire&quot; law, 17 USC 101, where the central question is whether it is &quot;a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment&quot;. If this is a work for hire, they have more than a right to the proceeds of the work, they own the work and can sue you for publishing without permission. Work for hire means they own the copyright, and only the copyright owner can authorize publication. You do not legally have to have an attorney to request a release, but you should have one, because if you request a release, you are admitting that this is a work for hire. Your lawyer would tell you not to admit to such a thing. Of course, if you are reasonably certain that this is a work for hire and don't intend to contend otherwise, that kind of foot-shooting is not a concern. If your lawyer delivers a formal letter to your boss, the boss will almost certainly hand it to the university attorneys, and both parties will then take the hardest line possible, in defense of the interests of their clients.