Indie dev: outsourcing related, contract's shenanigans

[laclongquan]

Indie/Outsource: normal practice or not

My brother and his wife has a small company do the outsourced works for game companies. Tiny, really.

Anyway, he ask me to read his contractor agreement and TL into Vietnamese for them to understand what they are getting into.

What strike me is the general tenor of the Company that hire the contractor seem to own all rights to the works produced.

Say, if the contractor make an animated character, 100% original, nothing from the company or elsewhere (just to keep things simple). The Contractor seem to, as required by the agreement, relinquish all rights to the Company.

The payments are specified and once only, obviously.

So yeah, I want to ask the professionals in the game development fields, that is that normally accepted procedure in the industry?

 

[MRY]

Totally normal. It's a work-for-hire arrangement. I've never worked under any different terms, nor have I ever employed anyone to work on my projects under different terms.

 

[laclongquan]

Just asking.

Because the moral rights also are signed over.

This is a bit different to me in book industry, as moral rights still belong to the original author.

 

[Galdred]

Totally normal. It's a work-for-hire arrangement. I've never worked under any different terms, nor have I ever employed anyone to work on my projects under different terms.

Does the contract need to specify that the artist keeps the right to showcase his work on his blog/deviantart... and in his portfolio then?
What if there is an artbook to be made? Would the artist have rights to use these images as part of The art of laclongquan's brother's?

 

[laclongquan]

Nope, I think~

 

[MRY]

Does the contract need to specify that the artist keeps the right to showcase his work on his blog/deviantart... and in his portfolio then?
What if there is an artbook to be made? Would the artist have rights to use these images as part of The art of laclongquan's brother's?

I typically include a term leaving the artist such a right. Not sure if it’s needed.

 

[JarlFrank]

I've seen artists on deviantart who write in their commission guidelines that they charge extra if you don't want them to show the piece they did for you in their portfolio, so I guess the ability or inability of the artist to show the art piece anywhere not connected to the original contract is a term that can be discussed with the contractor. Usually artists are allowed to show off the piece, but sometimes a contractor might want to keep the piece a secret until the release of the game (like say, a 3D model for a boss enemy that appears at the very end of the game), so of course they'd want to prevent the artist from showing it around.

 

[laclongquan]

Guess I will discuss with them that option for later contracts.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Because the moral rights also are signed over.

Which moral rights?

If I order a plumber and he installs a new toilet, does he still own the toilet for moral rights?

So called artists should stop taking themselves so seriously. 99.9999% of "art" are a service, nothing else. Once millions of people fall in love with your 32x32 icon then you can call yourself artist, otherwise you are just a painter.

 

[supervoid]

Which moral rights?

If I order a plumber and he installs a new toilet, does he still own the toilet for moral rights?

Moral rights for vidya game art is being credited and posting shit to the portfolio which is necessary to find a job. Lack of those two= months to years of a gap that looks like unemployment, CV goes straight to the trash bin. People don't agree on the transfer of moral rights (it's illegal in plenty of countries anyway) or charge much more to compensate for future problems.

So called artists should stop taking themselves so seriously. 99.9999% of "art" are a service, nothing else. Once millions of people fall in love with your 32x32 icon then you can call yourself artist, otherwise you are just a painter.

Nobody does, trust me. It's fine artists and people from outside industry who are constantly butthurt because some recruiters decided to call production design and assets creation and "art". It's p. amusing.

 

[Burning Bridges]

There are rights that you cannot buy. For example when I write a program I am its author. You cannot simply contract that author becomes someone else. If something like that is written in a contract, you can just sign and ignore it.

This is also why you can always write you did work for xy on your CV. Unless perhaps you work for black projects in secret service, I am not aware of any law that could interfere with that.

 

[laclongquan]

If you write a text and it got published, you are its author, which is your moral rights in this case. The text's commercial right may belong to others due to life's vagaries, but your moral right is inviolable.

What strike me in these work-for-hire contracts like I mentioned is the moral rights also assigned to the payer. It specifically mention moral rights, after all. The payer can say they are the author/creator of the works (in this specific case, animations)

I understand that is industry's accepted practice. It's just strange to me.

 

[supervoid]

There are rights that you cannot buy. For example when I write a program I am its author. You cannot simply contract that author becomes someone else. If something like that is written in a contract, you can just sign and ignore it.

This is also why you can always write you did work for xy on your CV. Unless perhaps you work for black projects in secret service, I am not aware of any law that could interfere with that.

Yeah, it works like this but only in Europe. In some other countries (USA) those rights can be waived or transfered and author have no rights to be credited or post their works by default, they have to include premmision in contract.

work-for-hire

It transfers moral rights. They can do it, it states that employer is an author. I'm not sure if they can hire somebody from a country that doesn't allow to transfer moral rights, probably local law is more important and overrides contract. IIRC it was created just because Hollywood wants to abuse people without any consequences, it's not legal in case of books, coding etc.

 

[The Avatar]

It is normal in AAA game development. The publisher is obviously going to want all rights to the game and everything in it.

Indie games can be whatever is agreed upon. If you have a tight budget and the artist is willing to work for less money in exchange for keeping rights to the original work, you can do that- but I wouldn't be surprised if such an asset were go up on the Asset Store or TurboSquid. I don't know the details, but I'm pretty that there are Wasteland 2 assets on the Asset Store.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yeah, it works like this but only in Europe. In some other countries (USA) those rights can be waived or transfered and author have no rights to be credited or post their works by default, they have to include premmision in contract.

It transfers moral rights. They can do it, it states that employer is an author. I'm not sure if they can hire somebody from a country that doesn't allow to transfer moral rights, probably local law is more important and overrides contract. IIRC it was created just because Hollywood wants to abuse people without any consequences, it's not legal in case of books, coding etc.

Ok now I understand why this is an issue.

I don't know American law and know it is fucked up, but the way I see it, reality cannot be subject of a contract. Whoever created a piece of work is a fact, and you cannot buy facts like "some Sherpa named Tenzing Norgay climbed Mount Everest but was poor so he sold that right to Mrs Jane Rottencrotch who is now legally entitled to have climbed Mt Everest first."

If this is the case this sounds kind of ridiculous, and only shows how retarded US civil law is.

 

[Bladeract]

Yeah, it works like this but only in Europe. In some other countries (USA) those rights can be waived or transfered and author have no rights to be credited or post their works by default, they have to include premmision in contract.

It transfers moral rights. They can do it, it states that employer is an author. I'm not sure if they can hire somebody from a country that doesn't allow to transfer moral rights, probably local law is more important and overrides contract. IIRC it was created just because Hollywood wants to abuse people without any consequences, it's not legal in case of books, coding etc.

Ok now I understand why this is an issue.

I don't know American law and know it is fucked up, but the way I see it, reality cannot be subject of a contract. Whoever created a piece of work is a fact, and you cannot buy facts like "some Sherpa named Tenzing Norgay climbed Mount Everest but was poor so he sold that right to Mrs Jane Rottencrotch who is now legally entitled to have climbed Mt Everest first."

If this is the case this sounds kind of ridiculous, and only shows how retarded US civil law is.

Ghost writing is very common or do you think shatner wrote a dozen scifi books in his 60s.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ghost writing is usually fine because it is a win win situation. Said person is a sad guy who realized that his books would never be printed nor read. Shatner on the other hand cannot write. So they meet, invent some story how they closely collaborated, the schmuck gets a decent payment for some months of work and the other parties get the lions share for upfront payments, publishing and Shatners name. But everyone is better off from the deal than without it. [imo this wouldn't invalidate the fact that said writer wrote it, if he kept convincing proof. But they make a contract that says he'd be in have breach of contract if he later claimed ownership of the whole thing. And pacta sunt servanda. That far, such a contract makes sense because no one is forced to sign it. ]

Maybe that's also the ratio of the computer graphics deals. I can paint a bmp and look at it. I could also put it for sale on ebay but no one would pay more than 10c for it. Or I could sell it to some company, get 100$ and an order for 10,000$ of more graphics. Media industry in a nutshell.

By the way, great painters also sold their paintings to rich burgers and kings, and in some cases also the right to claim it was theirs. It may be morally wrong but at the time it was a lot of money for canvas and some paint.