Client wants new webmaster.. what do I do with the site

[PCRIDE]

My client that I have done his website for years seems to have hired a new webmaster, so do I make a backup of the site and keep it there for the new guy to use/modify/dissemble my work?

Since my client paid me does that make them the owner of the site?

[Natsia]

They own the site, you own the intellectual property and copy rights to all design and or artwork you've put on it.
You're in your right to burn the disk and all files to a disk and hand it over for one last administrative free and sell him the rites.
Admin fee should be around 30% the cost of all work you've done, rites are entirely up to you.

[PCRIDE]

So give em a disk for 30% or whatever, how do I explain that cost to the client when they may think they own it?

[Natsia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Print that out and give it to them.

[FlashLackey]

It depends some on where you are located. I'm not sure what the laws are like on Pluto. Are they similar to the US?

Was there no contract in place?

If not, you're probably not positioned well to be entitled to anything legally for their continued use of the site. They paid you to make a product for them. So, they now own it. They would not be able to re-sell that product for what it is. But, they could still profit by using it. The best you could probably get away with is to not give them the source code, if there is any(fla's for example).

Finally, the laws only matter really if you would actually be willing to go to the extreme of pursuing them in court. Most of the time, it's not worth it. I would try to work out some reasonable fee to get the new person set up and try to leave them with as good a relationship as possible. Maybe they will want more work from you down the road or refer you to someone else. If you have to threaten to sue, you might not end up with anything and you'll have a permanently angry customer.

[FlashLackey]

If, however, you really wanted to be shrewd about it. You could charge a huge fee for whatever final services they need from you to do the switch. For instance, if they want you to transfer data to a new host or even just send them a cd of the site files or something. You can name your price for that. In court, you would have to show some evidence that people might charge that much for the service. So, it couldn't be too unreasonable.

[Frets]

When a site is done the site is done.

When I was designing I would back up everthing to CD and send it to them after the final payment. I hated open ended contracts. If they wanted to negotiate redesign later that was fine.

Usually I'd burn a backup. They didn't have to contact me at a later point if they choose to go with a different designer. However if they lost the CD I would charge for an additional backup.

Yes I would still get calls from the wannabe replacement, and the client.
And I would be very clear about stating while I was not in the education business lessons started at $100 an hour paid in advance with a minimum $500 down and I would need a month to clear my schedule.
Usually that would fix the client and his 13 year old nephew.

[hurricaneone]

If, however, you really wanted to be shrewd about it. You could charge a huge fee for whatever final services they need from you to do the switch.

I would call that being a d!ck rather than being shrewd.

I was always under the impression that if they commissioned you to do a site, they owned it all, lock, stock and two smoking barrells.

After all, if a painter is commissioned to paint a picture, do you charge extra for the canvas?

[FlashLackey]

Isn't "shrewd" synonomous with d!ck?

Anyway, yes, I agree. It's not something I would do. But, he seems to want to know what his legal options are. It was said that he could charge an additional fee for the work he already did so that the client owns it. I wanted to clarify that I don't think that is accurate. But, if he wanted to accomplish the same effect, he could do so by being a d!ck and charging a lot for whatever else he has to do, no matter how trivial.

I think it varies by locality. But, here, if you commission someone to do a site, you own the deployable files. You don't own the source or any intellectual rights the developer has to processes or systems they have unless that is contracted (which it often is). For instance, if you built a slideshow engine for some client and it wasn't contracted that they own the intellectual rights, you would still own the rights to that slideshow engine. You could re-sell it to other clients for further profit. But, the client could not. They could, however, continue to use it as implemented into their site that they bought.

To use the painting analogy. The client owns the painting. But, they don't own the process used. For instance, imagine that a special brush was used to make some abstract painting. They would not, unless specified in the sale, own the special brush.

[hurricaneone]

Isn't "shrewd" synonomous with d!ck?

Um, I don't think you have to be a dIck to be a shrewd investor, but maybe it helps.

Anyway, yes, I agree. It's not something I would do.

I didn't mean to imply that you would, though I know if read quickly, my post might say as much.

To use the painting analogy. The client owns the painting. But, they don't own the process used. For instance, imagine that a special brush was used to make some abstract painting. They would not, unless specified in the sale, own the special brush.

I see what you're getting at, but that's a weird way of looking at it.

I've never been able to rationalize the idea that the source files should not belong to the client. Granted, when you buy a car, you don't own the stamping machines that formed the body panels, but I don't think that anything like that is an equal. The source code/files is/are by default an inherent constituent of the site, required in most cases to do updates, and as such shoud be provided when handing over the actual site content.

Levying an additional charge on the source files is gouging, plain and simple.

[Stoke Laurie]

It is common in the marketing world for clients to change agency when they feel the need for change. The client will always fatigue of his image before his customers, because he sees so much more of it than they do. Don't take it as a rejection of your work, it is quite normal.

Probably the biggest challenge all designers face is the "Oh I've got a mate/brother-in-law/neice on a computer course and they are brilliant, and they are doing me a site"
One of the best ways to show that you do not belong in this category is to tell potential clients that they will have a cd back-up of their site on completion. Suggest to them that this is essential on several levels, and I vertually guarantee that that level of openness will get you the business, because we know that most wanabees out there are cut-n-paste people who want to hid behind "how difficult all this web thing is". It is worth printing a label for the cd, with your site details on. It also acts as a great prop when you want something to exchange for a cheque.
Good luck, and replace him with a new customer.

[FlashLackey]

Levying an additional charge on the source files is gouging, plain and simple.

I couldn't agree more. This subject has come up several times here and I've always tried to discourage the practice as well. I've always offered the source for client work and believe it's poor business to do otherwise.

But, technically, unless it's specified in a contract, the default law allows the developer to retain rights to the source. It's a good thing for a person to know if they are ever looking to hire developers. They should make sure that they have this covered in a contract.

[Googooboyy]

My thoughts: They've paid, whatever left on that webspace is theirs. Their money was for a website which you've already provided. Source codes/backups are yours to keep.

Imagine this, a restaurant owner hires a chef to cook a meal. The chef renders his service and delivers the dish. The restaurant owner is satisfied and pays. The chef thanks the restaurant owner for the payment and leaves. IF the owner requests for the chef's recipe/technique/etc, do you think the chef should oblige or sell it for a fee?

Basically, if someone pays for a product, thats what he gets - an end product (unless a contract states for more claims).

I usually charge my customers when they come in for design and at the same I let them know the final artwork is theirs for keep. However should they want to keep a copy of the working/source files there'll be an extra fee, which they usually shun anway.

Your comeuppance should be the period when the new webmaster begs you for the source codes.

[FlashLackey]

Imagine this, you're a resteraunt owner and you have to choose between two resteraunts to eat at. The food is equally good at both, but one of them offers to give the recipes with the meal for no extra cost.

Which resteraunt do you go to?

[Stoke Laurie]

You refer to this person as a client, they only upgrade from a customer to client when they give you additional repeat work, if all this customer has ever done is give you 1 order for a 1 job he is hardly a client.
Find another customer, then work on a stratagy to convert them to client. How do you do this? well lets start a thread and chuck some ideas together.

[Frets]

I'm tryng to remember the poster
(several years ago)
A guy developed this business model where the client/customer was only awarded usage rights for one year. At the end of the year the designer could/would renegotiate over usage rights for the design.

What a joke design rental.

[whispers]

If you dont put it all on the table from the beginning...

I dont think there is much you can do.. they hired you with t he intent of getting a 'good'.. they own it. It is what you were commissioned for..

[gerbick]

I'm one of the jerks that charge more for source code; but it's mainly due to the nature of what I tend to do for contract work that doesn't lend itself well to uncompiled code to be given away. I've had idea upon idea taken away, re-applied, reverse-engineered, and in a few instances re-packaged and sold for a profit.

But in this case, your maintenance portion is gone, the website is theirs. Hand it over, be done with it. My contracts usually state that source code is all mine. All but my current full-time work. Whatever is made onsite, it's theirs.

[hurricaneone]

Interesting that the 'who owns the source code' question only comes up with Flash (and similar 'generated' content) and apps that depend on code that resides on a remote, non-client server.

Otherwise, you hand over the source code by dafault.

[gerbick]

Not in my case. I was referring to .NET web apps that were deployed onsite.