Domain regis'd for client, need advice

[sparkie7]

You just said that you wouldn't give it back to them unless they paid a higher fee??

That's standard business practice. That's what an illustrator, photographer or programmer would do for Buy Out to the right to the IP. Think about it.

What happens if the client decides they no longer want your services?

Simple, they ask for a transfer out.

That's what I'd advise them to do. It almost never makes sense to "lease" a domain name. For one, there is no technical or legal mechanism provided in the Internet registration system to give somebody control of a domain for a specific period of time.

How is this any different from when you purchase a domain name for x years from anyone? Fact is domain names are leased.

I'm quite aware of U.S. "work for hire" laws. So, let me clarify. It's not uncommon for graphic artists to withhold AI files until the very last minute, even when they have agreed that they are creating a work for hire. They feel that the AI file is their key to payment. That's unfortunate. Yes, there are bad guys on the other side as well. I had a bad experience with this, and my policy is now that I expect graphic artists to follow the same procedures that I do as a programmer when I do a work for hire: source files go in MY (the client's) revision-control system at minimum daily whenever they are changed.

The AI or EPS file is similar to a photographers negative or digital RAW file. Its the master. They only give duplicates. Designer may give PDF files and photographer downsized JPEG files for instance. We don't do this, b/c getting artwork from AI/EPS files is the best method, no line or colour anomalies.

If the client's IT department is going to set this up, then why were you asking here in the first place? Oh. Want to shield client from your lack of knowledge. You didn't even know that they could do this, did you? It looks like you didn't (and perhaps still don't) know the difference between DNS and registrar, and assumed that they are married. You thought that you had to use GoDaddy's DNS services.

Read from my Original post. Yes we know that a point to a DNS will work perfectly for websites, we just weren't sure about the email routing. And no, we knew we didn't need to use Godaddy's DNS services (the client has that sorted, they will use their own), we just use Godaddy's control panel to key in the DNS pointing. Seems you want to belittle rather than help, in which case why bother posting?

Here's the basic issue: what you are doing is probably legal, assuming you have fully disclosed to your client. (Unfortunately, this often happens WITHOUT disclosure. Many clients have little technical knowledge, and have no idea how registration works, either legally or technically.) But it's borderline unethical, and not in the best interest of your client. And in any case, IMO, it's bad business. It's an adversarial relationship from the git-go.

This client is in no way a one man show who doesn't know what a computer is. The client has a whole IT dept, that means they know their *****. So they are technically skilled up.

So how on earth is it bad business practice etc? -- look at all the licensing, leasing and reting that goes on in the real world. Microsoft as an example. BG is a billionaire b/c he licenses his software, rather than sell the rights to someone else.

Also, let's be clear, we created the brand, brand name from zero. we registered the domain name even before the client requested it, we just knew this had to be done. They can actually decide to use any variant of the brandname+whatever.com or any other non .com domain, if they wish to. We are not forcing them to use brandname.com, and holding a huge and ridiculously large sum before they can have it. It just a simple annual licence fee. Just like everyone pays annually for their domain "rental"

But the actual address is not something I think the designer can own.

I would like to substitute 'designer' in your line with creator or originator.

Generally your are right. If Sony came to us and said register sony.com, then they own the address. As they have business history, an established brand etc..

However, (and this is the situation) if Sony asked us to create a new brand (brand name, identity etc) for a new business, (with no reference to Sony) for a new line of 3D widescreen TV's AND there was no stipulation in the contract of ownership of IP, then we would automatically own the IP/copyright to the brand AND the address as originators of the IP.

 

[snberk103]

That's standard business practice. That's what an illustrator, photographer or programmer would do for Buy Out to the right to the IP. Think about it.

Actually, as a photographer, I do give the original files now to my clients in most cases. I've decided I would rather have the good-will, and the repeat shooting assignments. In most cases, the images I provide today are dated anyway soon. Where I do license images is for publications.

I would like to substitute 'designer' in your line with creator or originator.

Generally your are right. If Sony came to us and said register sony.com, then they own address. As they have business history, an established brand etc..

However, (and this is the situation) if Sony asked us to create a new brand (brand name, identity etc) for a new business, (with no reference to Sony) for a new line of 3D widescreen TV's AND there was no stipulation in the contract of ownership of IP, then we would automatically own the IP/copyright to the brand AND the address as originators of the IP.

That is an interesting side to the debate I hadn't thought of. I will need to get back to you, eh?

 

[sparkie7]

Actually, as a photographer, I do give the original files now to my clients in most cases. I've decided I would rather have the good-will, and the repeat shooting assignments. In most cases, the images I provide today are dated anyway soon. Where I do license images is for publications.

Fair enough, sounds like you have been in the business for quite a few years. Photographers used to (and some still do) stick to their guns about ownership of the negative (film or digital). But nowadays things have changed and its so much more competitive. I do some professional photography for clients and even though I have no problem giving them the RAW files on request, I don't as a matter of practice as giving unprocessed files is not a good idea as its not representative of how is should look - color corrected, levels balanced etc, etc..

But as you say, if the client requests original files we have no problem giving them the AI or EPS files on the design side of things

That is an interesting side to the debate I hadn't thought of. I will need to get back to you, eh?

[ As a photographer yourself, unless otherwise negotiated, you would automatically be the owner of the IP to the photographs which you take. ]

Sure If a dispute arises the courts will look at ownership, history of trading, good will, passing of etc..

As you have noted this thread has gotten mixed up between address and IP issues, however they are intertwined

 

[Consultant]

How is this any different from when you purchase a domain name for x years from anyone? Fact is domain names are leased.

Tell me any legit business that leases a URL. No, referring to yourself don't count.

 

[sparkie7]

Tell me any legit business that leases a URL. No, referring to yourself don't count.

In effect everybody does. That's why its for 1, 2, 5 or x years.

If you owned it you wouldn't have to pay year on year. But you do.

 

[Cromulent]

In effect everybody does. That's why its for 1, 2, 5 or x years.

If you owned it you wouldn't have to pay year on year. But you do.

Technically you are correct, but it is a bit of semantic wrangling.

 

[sparkie7]

Well, I just tell it like it is. If Consultant see's it any other way he is deluding himself.

If he wants to be pedantic about it, I know of several management and 'web' consultants who 'buy' domains on behalf of their clients, manage them, mark it up and invoice them every year. -- and these are legit business, no question --These clients don't want to know jack about the technicals or how its done or what's involved. They want their emails and website to work. Simple as that. They make more money doing what they do best.

 

[snberk103]

... Photographers used to (and some still do) stick to their guns about ownership of the negative (film or digital). But nowadays things have changed and its so much more competitive. I do some professional photography for clients and even though I have no problem giving them the RAW files on request, I don't as a matter of practice as giving unprocessed files is not a good idea as its not representative of how is should look - color corrected, levels balanced etc, etc..
...
I usually didn't give the clients my negatives/positives from a shoot. Never if they were portrait clients, always if they were getting catalogue shots. I always figured the products in a catalogue changed so often, images of last year's stuff was worthless in any case. And they thought I was generous because I handed over the originals.

[ As a photographer yourself, unless otherwise negotiated, you would automatically be the owner of the IP to the photographs which you take. ]

Not in Canada (unless the proposed copyright legislation makes a change - I really should look into that). Generally speaking unless there is an agreement to something else, the party who commissions the work owns the copyright to images.
...
As you have noted this thread has gotten mixed up between address and IP issues, however they are intertwined

I agree that they are intertwined, at least partially - but I'm not convinced yet that a domain name itself is IP.

RE: "Leasing a URL" You have said that people lease URLs, regardless of whether is from an entity such as yourself or a domain registrar - and that it is the same thing. I would disagree, on two grounds. 1) Domain Registrars are bound by particular laws of a country to maintain some semblance of impartiality. While they are (usually, but not necessarily) a for-profit entity there are restrictions on what they can and can not do. For example, they can't pull someone's domain name out from under them simply because some company was willing to pay more. You can, though you may choose not to for business reasons. 2) "Leasing" your URL from a registrar is the same as leasing a store front from the landowner. Leasing from a design firm is the same as sub-leasing. There are less legislative protections in a sub-lease than there are in lease. Maybe not an exact analogy, but I think it's pretty close.

Cheers

 

[sparkie7]

I agree that they are intertwined, at least partially - but I'm not convinced yet that a domain name itself is IP.

Whether its called IP or 'right of use', if you can prove ownership, history, or established trading etc, these companies/organisations/entites have primary rights. And this is why in cyber squatting cases on addresses the courts almost always rules in favour of these co's and organisations that can prove first rights. If Joe Blogg registers Sony.com before Sony does and Sony takes him to court, you can bet yout dollars Sony will win.

RE: "Leasing a URL" You have said that people lease URLs, regardless of whether is from an entity such as yourself or a domain registrar - and that it is the same thing. I would disagree, on two grounds. 1) Domain Registrars are bound by particular laws of a country to maintain some semblance of impartiality. While they are (usually, but not necessarily) a for-profit entity there are restrictions on what they can and can not do. For example, they can't pull someone's domain name out from under them simply because some company was willing to pay more. You can, though you may choose not to for business reasons. 2) "Leasing" your URL from a registrar is the same as leasing a store front from the landowner. Leasing from a design firm is the same as sub-leasing. There are less legislative protections in a sub-lease than there are in lease. Maybe not an exact analogy, but I think it's pretty close.

Cheers

Some technically valid points. But worse case, that is why there are courts to settle disputes; if and when they arise

 

[designguy79]

Here's a question for the OP: is your company trademarking the brand name as well?

 

[sparkie7]

Here's a question for the OP: is your company trademarking the brand name as well?

yes

 

[snberk103]

OK, I think I understand now.... ..... another analogy, though.

You are the Safeway (a supermarket chain for those who are not familiar with it) brand of .... something electronic (I don't want to unintentionally insult you by comparing the product to beans....)....

The Safeway brand product needs a name, a branding, a colour scheme, etc etc just like a big name-brand product does. This is where the OP's firm is involved. One of the differences is that the contents of the Safeway product is being purchased and repackaged by the name brand. But Safeway is putting their own labels on them, and they are maintaining their own web presence. In this case, the name brand is actually doing the support of the product for Safeway, since they know the product, and so Safeway is arranging to have the support calls and emails routed to the name brand.

It's not a great analogy, but perhaps it's closer to what is happening. In this analogy the Safeway branding is all owned by Safeway (not the name brand) and the design work is being done in-house.... which is not the case with the OP's scenario... but now it kinda makes sense to me.

 

[Macky-Mac]

you own their domain, their web site, their brand identity, all their brand graphics and their brand trademark?

LOL, you could sell their business out from under them!

 

[jtara]

Here's a question for the OP: is your company trademarking the brand name as well?

yes

Wow. Even less advisable for the client.

I'm sure you can cite examples of companies that have "leased" brand names, but I doubt it's commonly done for a new brand. Established, and - particularly - somewhat "worn out" brands are sometimes "leased" for a period of time, often limited to a specific geographic area. For example, Spry (a competitor of Crisco) is currently only manufactured in Afghanistan (or something like that...). I'm sure one could acquire the right to market Spry in the U.S. for, say, 5 years. Technically, I don't think you are leasing the name, though, but are acquiring limited rights to the use of the trademark.

But to hire a creative firm to come up with a brand for you, and then allow the creative firm to retain rights to the brand? Just plain foolish.

------

Others have covered the differences between "leasing" a domain from the domain registrar and "leasing" a domain from a third-party. I concur with other's comments. There are protections in place to insure that the "lessee" has the use of the name during the registration period when using a registrar and won't be unfairly taken or use denied. Not so when leasing from "Joe Blow Design".

 

[jtara]

you own their domain, their web site, their brand identity, all their brand graphics and their brand trademark?

LOL, you could sell their business out from under them!

That's why it's such a bad deal for the client.

Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Usually without the client being aware, and usually without the explicit paperwork that (I assume) the OP has executed with his client.

Then, a payment is in dispute, or the client is unhappy with ongoing work and wants to go elsewhere and - BAM - their business is SHUT DOWN and there is NO INCOME. That's a strong incentive to stay with the original provider, LOL.

Probably the most foolish thing any client who is dependent on their web site and branding for income could do.

YOU might not treat your client this unfairly. But the practice is so widespread among those who DON'T have your integrity (cough-cough) that IMO it's best just to stay out of that tar pit. You want to muck around in there, be my guest. Personally, I'd steer clear of anybody who does this. The smell is just too overpowering.