Who owns the EA? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I will try to explain why MetaQuotes “rules” about the default transfer of all rights, in the absence of a pre-agreement, is not only illegal, but completely contrary to their business model.
When a programmer writes an EA or Script, or whatever, he writes many lines of code, including functions, classes or even libraries that the coder has devised and created. The coder may even use parts coded by another developer, shared in public under an open-source license.
If it were the case, as stated by the rules above, and all rights transferred, by which every single line of code become the exclusive property of the customer, then that would mean that the coder would not be allowed to ever again reuse the code ever again, be it the functions, the classes, the libraries, or any of it for any other program. Never! Plus, if the coder used open source code by another coder, they would not be allowed to transfer such rights over, at all, without prior permission, and that would automatically violate an open source license.
That is way, in the world of software development, when a all rights are transferred to a customer, the prices for such work, are huge. In no way, would a coder ever sell away all his rights for a measly $30 to $100. Ever!
So, if a coder were to strictly abide by the rules as stated by MetaQuotes, they would only be able do a job or two, and no more, because it would be against copyright laws to ever reuse even one line of code with another customer. They would have to totally rewrite things completely differently between jobs. It would be impossible to code every single job so differently so as not to violate the copyright of a previous job. This is impossible to do for more than a couple of jobs, and it would prevent the coder from doing multiple jobs and earn MetaQuotes their commission.
So, I will repeat, not only is MetaQuotes rules in violation of copyright law, it is also totally impractical and against their aim of making a profit off the commission. It is contrary to the business models.
No matter what their rules states, they cannot legally override the coders’ rights nor demand they relinquish it at so low prices and with no legal documentation to accompany such a transaction.
However, I would like to clarify, that the customer also holds some rights in terms of their Intellectual Property. That is in regard to any strategy they have requested to be coded. Should such a strategy be completely unique and not available in public, in any way, shape or form, then that strategy is exclusively the property of the customer and the coder should not sell or distribute that information nor the EA using such a strategy.
In these cases, it would become a deadlock situation, as neither side would be allowed to have exclusive rights to the EA and neither side can sell or distribute it and both sides can only use it for personal use (unless one side, signed away some of their rights to the other).
This is however very rare, as most strategies are variations of what is already discussed and available all over the web and in books. So, the vast majority of customers will not be able to claim such exclusive Intellectual Property rights.
But don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and consult with a lawyer! It will surprise you at how much you will learn about copyright laws.
Thanks,
What you say makes sense and if I was a coder I would not want to have to start from scratch either.
However there are lots of EA's for sale that use common parameters in different combinations so
how can the seller have exclusive rights to sell their EA since they are using already existing code? The seller may be the coder or someone
that hired a coder. Either way they would be violating copyrights unless all of the code they used was open source.
Also there are EA's and indicators that do the same thing that are for sale by different sellers so it seems that no single person owns those copyrights.
The EA I want to have coded I believe is unique because I can't find one that does what I want. Most of the EA I want has common parameters
but has a different combination of them.
Thanks,
What you say makes sense and if I was a coder I would not want to have to start from scratch either.
However there are lots of EA's for sale that use common parameters in different combinations so
how can the seller have exclusive rights to sell their EA since they are using already existing code? The seller may be the coder or someone
that hired a coder. Either way they would be violating copyrights unless all of the code they used was open source.
Also there are EA's and indicators that do the same thing that are for sale by different sellers so it seems that no single person owns those copyrights.
The EA I want to have coded I believe is unique because I can't find one that does what I want. Most of the EA I want has common parameters
but has a different combination of them.
Just make an agreement with your coder. Anything can be done, just talk and communicate clearly.
learn to code it yourself then problem solved
You are brilliant
Just as Alain said in his post. It is all about the agreement and negotiation done with the coder. Most coders are happy to license you the distribution and sale of the EA, because they would like to continue developing new products for you to sell. It is a win-win for both of you.
You would continue to hold the copyright of the unique strategy, which allows you do continue to expand on it, and the coder would continue to hold the copyright of his code, so that they can continue to use base code for other projects.
It is all about shared rights and proper negotiations!
Are you forgetting that the code base belongs to the coder?
Irrespective of payment for rendering of services, both hold the copyright to their respective parts of the EA. So they must both negotiate the terms and licensing with one another to allow for distribution or commercial use by one or both parties.
If their are no negotiations then the default is a deadlock, where both side can only use the EA for personal use, but each side continues to be free to reuse or expand on the respective parts of Intellectual Property, that is the strategy by the customer and the code base by the coder.
when a photographer takes a photo for a model, who owns the photo?
model: you cant take this photo without my beauty
photographer: you cant take this photo without my skill
I'm a photographer so I will answer you.
The copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer. It actually belongs to whomever presses the shutter button. Hence the controversy about the famous photo of the monkey who took a picture.
The model however owns the rights to the her likeness and image.
The property owner of where the photo is taken, holds the rights to the location.
That is why informed photographers always have a model release form for the model to sign, and a property release form for the owner of the location to sign, so that all rights then belongs to the photographer in order to be able to sell the photo.
If none of the 3 parties sign away their rights, then the photo can only be used by the photographer for editorial use only (no sales or distribution), but neither the model nor the property owner can use the photo in any way shape or form, because the copyright belongs to the photographer (unless the photographer gives permission to the model or the location owner, to use the photo in their portfolio only).