EA (And Other Studios) Apparently Have Policies That Require Developers To Gather Permission Before Producing Any Creative Works Outside Of Work

[ArmadilloGame]

This is standard, and good for both parties. There's a thing in copyright law called "work for hire." Basically, if I pay you to make or work on a project specifically for me, I own the copyright even if you made it. Like an implied sale of the rights at the work's inception.

If a designer makes something in or adjacent to the field that his employer exist in, things become murky. Did the employee use company resources/time to develop the product? Does the product compete in any way with his employer? Is some aspect of the project within the employee's existing job scope, meaning he's holding back on his paid job to benefit his private project? All those can become arguments that could cause the company to try to gain at least partial ownership of the new project as a work for hire since the company is paying the employee to help them make stuff already. There is actually a ton of case law about this kind of stuff out there, because it happens relatively commonly.

Getting the project's scope and ownership on paper before there are monetary stakes yet makes it easier and clearer for everyone. It's an annoying hoop to jump through, but that's just the world we live in.

 

[Lukar]

Just because it's the standard doesn't mean it's okay.

 

[Kazooie]

Don't know about the owning part (that would not fly here), but you are required to ask permission from your employer if you do any other work here in Germany, no matter your job. Usually, you are additionally not allowed to do anything that could be considered competing. So even though I hate EA, this is no reason to complain imo.

 

[BloodHound]

Interesting. What is the reason behind such a policy? I've never come across this before.

Click to shrink...

So you don't use privileged information to become a competitor. If im an engineer and know the source code for Google search and then rewrite it and modify it while I'm at home and launch noogle, I can either be sued or it's entirely owned by Google.

 

[Kieli]

Want to chime in that this is standard in Canada as well. My contract signed says that any intellectual work that I do that is related to work (i.e. same domain) can be considered IP for the company UNLESS I get written permission and sign-off from legal team to do my own thing.

Obviously if I were working for a company that does, say, medical equipment and I go and make a grocery selling app, they don't get a cut of it because it's not competing software, but I'd still have to inform them ahead of time.

 

[Robochimp]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne.../01/22/when-barbie-went-to-war-with-bratz/amp

If you want to read about a situation like this playing out.

 

[Hero]

Literally nothing to make a big deal over and is common across many industries.

 

[DigitalOp]

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if you employed someone who just privately released a game that looked and played suspicious similarily to the one you were publishing...

Click to shrink...

You sound silly, that's obvious copying and using a company IP as inspiration for a possible competitor

Are you gonna be just as upset if that employee wrote a love story novel and tried to sell it while employed at the same game studio?

 

[elenarie]

This is standard policy. Activision has the same in place, at least when I worked there.

EA legal also will work w you to ensure that everything is kosher - they do NOT just swoop in and "take" your creative works outside of the company.

I've published a book and am producing a movie short. EA has been incredibly supportive of both and is not claiming either. Two of my colleagues have published children's books w the same support and hands-off treatment re: ownership.

There are things to get mad about in this industry. This isn't it.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. The company has been supportive of every single instance I know of this stuff. Which includes music, movies, books, and any other creative work, where creative work is not equal to a commercial video game project.

 

[Cenauru]

I don't buy that this isn't unethical if it lets employers also claim ownership over anything you do even if it's not remotely related to what you do during your work hours.

 

[Kieli]

it makes for less happy and fulfilled employees and it should be illegal because anything i do on my own time is mine, fuck employers who think otherwise

Click to shrink...

Do you work in the tech industry, by any chance?

 

[Qwark]

I had to sign something similar for my job (programming, but not in the games industry), but when clarified it was just that we couldn't use company hardware for outside activities, which seems fair to me.

After reading through the thread, it doesn't seem so unusual? Though I still think the games industry needs unions. I want to make games so bad, but I would never in a million years want to work in the games industry. And that's why I'm just a hobby game developer.

 

[Darryl M R]

This is a non story, and is a safeguard for dealing with IP and competition policies. It protects both companies and employees.

 

[Tunichtgut]

Don't know about the owning part (that would not fly here), but you are required to ask permission from your employer if you do any other work here in Germany, no matter your job. Usually, you are additionally not allowed to do anything that could be considered competing. So even though I hate EA, this is no reason to complain imo.

Click to shrink...

This! I remember even at my University, everything i coded would belong to the University.

 

[Why would you do that?]

Nintendo supposedly did this, which is why Hirokazu "HIP" Tanaka left Nintendo, because he wanted to compose music for the Pokemon anime in the '90s.

 

[Deffers]

Guys, "This is standard across multiple industries" does not mean "This is morally good, and you are stupid for thinking it's wrong."

It's still heinously evil. Every single company on earth could have this contractual obligation for every single position on Earth down to deliveryman and it would still be heinously evil. Yeah, sure, the initial impulse that creates this contractual clause is logical, namely, not having workers steal company IP-- but there are a million different expressions of that clause that are better than this trash. A programmer will never owe you their music or poetry because you hired them as a programmer. An artist shouldn't owe you all their art because you hire them to make art for you. How is this not obvious?

 

[gundamkyoukai]

This is normal in a lot of industries .
Guess this is another thing some people don't know about that happens every and in many things.

 

[Deleted member 20297]

Bait title. It just wrong. Not sure how much I can go into things, but things are very relaxed and it definitely is NOT all creative works.

It is not fucking nuts. And it has nothing to do with unions.

Is this the new weekend drama? :)

Click to shrink...

Thanks for your insight!

 

[MagicDoogies]

How lenient are they with giving permission?

Because I can imagine it being a heads up so that there doesn't need to be a lengthy future dispute.

Click to shrink...

According to some devs a lot of them are pretty lax. In some cases a new hire could renegotiate that part of the contract same day.
But I guess that all comes down to WHO you are and WHERE you're working.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

Guys, "This is standard across multiple industries" does not mean "This is morally good, and you are stupid for thinking it's wrong."

It's still heinously evil. Every single company on earth could have this contractual obligation for every single position on Earth down to deliveryman and it would still be heinously evil. Yeah, sure, the initial impulse that creates this contractual clause is logical, namely, not having workers steal company IP-- but there are a million different expressions of that clause that are better than this trash. A programmer will never owe you their music or poetry because you hired them as a programmer. An artist shouldn't owe you all their art because you hire them to make art for you. How is this not obvious?

Click to shrink...

my employer owns me and that's fine because they mostly let me do what i want as long as i ask them nicely first

 

[Champion]

LOL @ crying about this on social media years after signing the contract. Unprofessional and cringe.

 

[Yearsoflurking]

Guys, "This is standard across multiple industries" does not mean "This is morally good, and you are stupid for thinking it's wrong."

Click to shrink...

Who said anyone was stupid for thinking it's wrong, the thread is geared towards shitting on EA when this practice is actual standard across multiple industries. This is a wider discussion that can be had without pinpointing one corporation.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

According to some devs a lot of them are pretty lax. In some cases a new hire could renegotiate that part of the contract same day.
But I guess that all comes down to WHO you are and WHERE you're working.

Click to shrink...

love to be dependent on the kindness and largesse of my feudal lord

 

[benzopil]

You sound silly, that's obvious copying and using a company IP as inspiration for a possible competitor

Are you gonna be just as upset if that employee wrote a love story novel and tried to sell it while employed at the same game studio?

Click to shrink...

Just tell your boss that the main villain in your love story isn't based on him and doesn't work at the company with the same name and it's fine

 

[spam musubi]

I don't buy that this isn't unethical if it lets employers also claim ownership over anything you do even if it's not remotely related to what you do during your work hours.

Click to shrink...

Can you prove that you did it off your work hours? Without using work equipment? Without relying on any information gleamed at work? Then you can probably win a court case and you'll be fine. But in general it's a very murky area

 

[Jakisthe]

Guys, "This is standard across multiple industries" does not mean "This is morally good, and you are stupid for thinking it's wrong."

It's still heinously evil. Every single company on earth could have this contractual obligation for every single position on Earth down to deliveryman and it would still be heinously evil. Yeah, sure, the initial impulse that creates this contractual clause is logical, namely, not having workers steal company IP-- but there are a million different expressions of that clause that are better than this trash. A programmer will never owe you their music or poetry because you hired them as a programmer. An artist shouldn't owe you all their art because you hire them to make art for you. How is this not obvious?

Click to shrink...

According to multiple people ITT, the clauses are indeed pretty lenient. How else would the company know to sign off that something is ok - something they apparently very often do - if they're not told first? Why should this be a case of "ask for forgiveness, not permission" on the off chance that it can overlap? Pride?

 

[eraFROMAN]

Common, the studio I was at didn't even let you ask, anything you made belonged to them, no questions asked. Someone there made a board game and had to give up on it because it was the companies property as long as they worked there, and for a bit of time after.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Is this going to reveal who has actually worked for companies in their life?

Click to shrink...

Yes.

 

[Tunichtgut]

I mean, some companies are not that great, but having to protect themself is not being evil, it's just being rational, and this didn't come out of nowhere. But some probably just want to shit on companies no matter what.

 

[Deleted member 43]

The point of this is for employees to be proactive in addressing any issues related to IP, resources, or ownership for a product before it gets released. It's not to steal your work, and even if your contract does not include this, it would still be a good idea for anyone to share this material with their legal department before publication.

It's also a company policy thing, and generally very hard to enforce legally.

 

[Deleted member 43084]

In practice, the clause has only been enforced if you make substantial revenue off it (e.g. $millions). Large companies will not sue/fire their employees for making fan art/YouTube videos in their spare time (unless they violate other rules such as an internal NDA); it's both impractical and would tank the company's image overnight.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

not as stupid as not reading the thread (regardless of what you think of the policy, it's not a games thing)

Click to shrink...

I'm aware it's not just games. But this is a gaming thread, and it's just one of many reasons why game developers have shitty, thankless jobs where their employers hold all the power.

 

[Deleted member 46922]

also it speaks to how beaten down the modern worker is that the reaction here is "lol yeah that's every company nbd" rather than "this is utterly idiotic and oppressive and should be illegal everywhere"

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Raonak]

Yep its such a fucked up policy, i dont know how I would find any creative peace of i couldn't make my own games as my hobby.

Part of the reason i love my current job (non games related programming) is that they dont care what i do outside work hours.

Its actually legitimately concerning how many people see it as a standard thing and not something worth fighting for. But hey, thats modern work culture for ya.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

In practice, the clause has only been enforced if you make substantial revenue off it (e.g. $millions). Large companies will not sue/fire their employees for making fan art/YouTube videos in their spare time (unless they violate other rules such as an internal NDA); it's both impractical and would tank the company's image overnight.

Click to shrink...

having a sword of damocles hanging over you for your entire career is fine because it'll probably never fall and destroy your entire life

 

[Hailinel]

These sorts of clauses, as others have mentioned, are entirely normal non-compete clauses. My employer contract (non-game software) has a similar clause.

 

[Lunchbox]

I saw this, is this like an NDA?

 

[bishoptl]

This is standard in almost any industry.

Is this going to reveal who has actually worked for companies in their life?

Click to shrink...

Tell 'em!

Good clickbait, it got me in here - but a non-story.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

These sorts of clauses, as others have mentioned, are entirely normal non-compete clauses. My employer contract (non-game software) has a similar clause.

Click to shrink...

There's something wrong with the world when corporations own whatever you create, even if you do it off of company hours and it's unrelated to your job.

These kinds of parasitic clauses need to die.

 

[Crossing Eden]

having a sword of damocles hanging over you for your entire career is fine because it'll probably never fall and destroy your entire life

Click to shrink...

You should listen to the people ITT telling you how this actually works instead of raising a pitchfork.

 

[Deffers]

According to multiple people ITT, the clauses are indeed pretty lenient. How else would the company know to sign off that something is ok if they're not told first? Why should this be a case of "ask for forgiveness, not permission" on the off chance that it can overlap? Pride?

Click to shrink...

Because your creative output as a human being shouldn't be owned by anybody ab initio. Like, categorically. If it's related to your job you can make a case for IP theft. If it isn't, the company in question is demanding to own something of yours that should have nothing to do with your obligations to them. NOBODY should be comfortable with leaning on the beneficence of the people who let them make their bread just to express themselves. That's not normal, because that's not a balanced power dynamic and it never can be. This is a tremendous intrusion.

 

[Blizz]

How does this law work if you make whatever you're making while hired at the company (without them knowing), quit and then release it while not working at the company anymore?

 

[Deleted member 8196]

Who said anyone was stupid for thinking it's wrong, the thread is geared towards shitting on EA when this practice is actual standard across multiple industries. This is a wider discussion that can be had without pinpointing one corporation.

Click to shrink...

Yes, having EA on the headline was to bait clicks easy and at the same time we have TWO EA EMPLOYEES here saying that EA was supportive to them.

 

[Expy]

The point of this is for employees to be proactive in addressing any issues related to IP, resources, or ownership for a product before it gets released. It's not to steal your work, and even if your contract does not include this, it would still be a good idea for anyone to share this material with their legal department before publication.

It's also a company policy thing, and generally very hard to enforce legally.

Click to shrink...

Yep. Very tough to enforce, but most of the time the hastle to challenge it usually isn't worth the time and effort.

 

[Deleted member 43]

There's something wrong with the world when corporations own whatever you create, even if you do it off of company hours and it's unrelated to your job.

These kinds of parasitic clauses need to die.

Click to shrink...

We don't live in that world though, no matter what an employment contract says.

And again, the point of inclusion is to make employees be proactive about resolving issues, if any. Not to steal their work.

 

[exodus]

This is very standard and is actually in the benefit of the employees in this case, as it protects them in the future.

Moonlighting should always be disclosed to an employer in cases of potential conflicts of interest.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

You should listen to the people ITT telling you how this actually works.

Click to shrink...

i've read the thread, it's full of people with stockholm syndrome who have made their peace with being forced to ask their boss's permission to find some pleasure in creating art in the evenings and on weekends. just because anecdotally they're given the OK most of the time doesn't make any of this good.

 

[Kyo]

Afaik this also applies to most universities too. I recall being on a group project outside of classes when i was getting my comp sci degree and we ran into that when the possibility of selling it came up.

 

[Jakisthe]

Because your creative output as a human being shouldn't be owned by anybody ab initio. Like, categorically. If it's related to your job you can make a case for IP theft. If it isn't, the company in question is demanding to own something of yours that should have nothing to do with your obligations to them. NOBODY should be comfortable with leaning on the beneficence of the people who let them make their bread just to express themselves. That's not normal, because that's not a balanced power dynamic and it never can be. This is a tremendous intrusion.

Click to shrink...

And they're making it easier to avoid cases of IP theft by signing off ahead of time. Getting it squared away in advance of possible issues is better for everyone involved, employees included, and they wind up largely not caring for the colossal majority of cases. I imagine avoiding legal issues ahead of time is a supremely common sentiment. Still not a bad thing; still sounds like "pride" is the only "counterargument".

 

[elenarie]

i've read the thread, it's full of people with stockholm syndrome who have made their peace with being forced to ask their boss's permission to find some pleasure in creating art in the evenings and on weekends. just because anecdotally they're given the OK most of the time doesn't make any of this good.

Click to shrink...

Wat? :D