>I understand your point of view, and certainly it is the view most customers would like to take. But, based on the legal information I have received, which seems to be supported by the legal opinions received by others who've contributed to this thread, legally this is not the case. For one source of information, take a look at the section entitled "Who Owns the Software?" on the Nolo Press website at http://www.nolo.com/nn164.html. The book which this information comes from is "Software Developemnt: A Legal Guide" by Stephen Fishman, which IMHO belongs on every independent software developer's bookshelf.

Hello Rick,

I read the Nolo article you referenced. I am not certain that it provides very strong support for the proposition that the software developer in a "for hire" situation owns the resulting software.

The key sentence seems to be:

Without an agreement transferring ownership from the developer to the customer, the developer will own the copyright in the software--unless the developer is considered the customer's employee or, perhaps, if it was part of a larger work and was prepared under a written work for hire agreement.

This states an exception to a supposed general rule which seems to swallow the rule. When is software not part of a larger work? The client changes business practices to accomodate the application which can revamp in large or small part how the client does business.

I agree that the client does not "automatically" own the software -- but I think there are very few factual situations where he would not.

The better approach is certainly to get an agreement on ownership up front, preventing any unpleasant surprises later.

regards,