Legal standing for a copyright notice placed by prior web developer? (long backstory)

Question

Let's say a prior web developer placed a copyright notice on a website in the web developer's and not the client's name. The prior web developer has been hostile and actually took the site down for some months last year. Site gets put back up just prior to a court date where client and prior web developer are in dispute because of tenant/landlord relationship.

Site now placed on new host and DNS and email are now completely out of prior web developer's control. New web developer cleans up the messy Dreamweaver-and-no-alt-attributes and lots of needless iframes code. New web developer adds a bit of CSS, unifies JavaScript. Site basically still appears largely as it did, but now with copyright now (c)2010 The Client, removed <u> tags, improved readability, SEO, accessibility, update-abilty.

There was (surprise!) no contract between prior web developer and client, just word of mouth. And until prior web developer was a bozo, was perfectly reasonable entity. Though apparently prior web developer refused to do any updates for several years.

Practically though, the design is unremarkable, a header, nav, and middle scrolling content window with images, and an empty footer.

So, now, the question (at last!): Does that copyright that the prior web developer put on the site mean anything legally? Assume it's archived in The Wayback Machine so anyone could see it if they look. Are there any other pitfalls in this situation the web developer should worry about? Any pitfalls for the client (beyond the standing bad blood)? Is it all such a mess already the practical step of moving and slightly-improving the site make the prior copyright a moot point?

Answer 1

As always, your best and most definitive course of action is to seek actual legal counsel with experience in copyright law. I'm not a lawyer and, as such, the following should be viewed only as my opinion and not legal advice.

The key phrase in the PDF that MrChrister linked to is:

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

My understanding is that unless there is clear verbiage in writing regarding a work for hire and the ownership of the work, anything created is automatically considered the intellectual property of the creator of the work, not the commissioner of the work. The process is automatic and the act of creation itself is sufficient to ensure intellectual property rights, meaning that applying the actual © symbol is largely redundant and serves more as a deterrent rather than a legally-binding action.

For this particular case, if there is concern and there was no written contract, again, my advice would be to contact a lawyer to clear up any lingering issues or doubts. If the situation is bad enough and has not actually been handled through court, the first developer could come back at a later date. (While I seriously doubt the veracity of his case, the person currently claiming to own 80% of Facebook would be a good example of this). I'd suggest legally checking into it now, even if it's more of a hassle and more expensive. The peace of mind may be worth it.

As an aside, it's situations like this that make it necessary to always have a written contract. Good contracts should clearly define ownership, responsibility, tasks to be performed, and should provide clear steps of action to be taken if one or both parties do not fulfill their obligations. If you're working without a contract, you're working without a net. It might not be today, but one day you'll fall.

Answer 2

The author of the site was "for hire" and therefore is not considered the owner of the copyright, the person who paid for it is.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Look at Page 2. Pretty sure this website is an audiovisual work, and the copyright belongs to the person who paid for it. Hence, (c) 2010 The Client is the only accurate copyright assumption, and for hire author was never the holder by default.