if you happen to work for nice people, sure. otherwise it's yet another club that a shitty boss can hold over your head.And again, the point of inclusion is to make employees be proactive about resolving issues, if any. Not to steal their work.
if you happen to work for nice people, sure. otherwise it's yet another club that a shitty boss can hold over your head.And again, the point of inclusion is to make employees be proactive about resolving issues, if any. Not to steal their work.
This is about selling work, not creating it.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.
It seems like you're literally just projecting and haven't actually worked at a company like the ones in question, (which again, this isn't just a gaming industry thing...).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
Do you have any examples of this? Because I and others posting in this very thread have literally never seen this be a problem.if you happen to work for nice people, sure. otherwise it's yet another club that a shitty boss can hold over your head.
NDAs are completely unrelated, and much easier to follow. (there's no ambiguity, even on Era, how to break an NDA and what happens when you break an NDA)
Around John Carmack's departure for Occulus/Facebook yes.
reading through the twitter thread from the OP now:Do you have any examples of this? Because I and others posting in this very thread have literally never seen this be a problem.
Thanks :-)NDAs are completely unrelated, and much easier to follow. (there's no ambiguity, even on Era, how to break an NDA and what happens when you break an NDA)
These are very easy to follow:NDAs are completely unrelated, and much easier to follow. (there's no ambiguity, even on Era, how to break an NDA and what happens when you break an NDA)
reading through the twitter thread from the OP now:
i saw others a few days ago when this was going around too. it happens and it shouldn't.
It's a book about working in the game industry. While it sucks, that's not unrelated to his current job.
i get that you think this kind of abuse is OK, but it's still abuseIt's a book about working in the game industry. While it sucks, that's not unrelated to his current job.
Even better than having the person who empowers you to buy food decide whether or not this is OK is just having it be OK because it's self-evidently OK because it's NOT RELATED TO YOUR JOB. If your idea of humility is "It's good that I, as a programmer, need to ask my boss permission before I paint in the evenings" then, yeah, I'm leaking hubris out of every pore. Maybe it's the height of arrogance to believe that I shouldn't be owned by the company I work for and that my obligations to that company should end at the precise point where my work for them ends. I'm fine with that.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. Still not a bad thing; still sounds like "pride" is the only "counterargument".
This is standard in almost any industry.
Is this going to reveal who has actually worked for companies in their life?
It's a book about working in the game industry. While it sucks, that's not unrelated to his current job.
He says it was written before he joined. If the Legal team is going to say no to him, that seems really wack. I guess I understand the use of a policy for anti competition practices, but for a book? doesnt seem right.
Written, but not released.i get that you think this kind of abuse is OK, but it's still abuse
Bruh.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.
Right, so, pride. Which doesn't count for much in legal proceedings, and is a great way to get caught up in them when they can otherwise easily be avoided. A company can't know what is and is not related to someone's job unless they're informed.Even better than having the person who empowers you to buy food decide whether or not this is OK is just having it be OK because it's self-evidently OK because it's NOT RELATED TO YOUR JOB. If your idea of humility is "It's good that I, as a programmer, need to ask my boss permission before I paint in the evenings" then, yeah, I'm leaking hubris out of every pore. Maybe it's the height of arrogance to believe that I shouldn't be owned by the company I work for and that my obligations to that company should end at the precise point where my work for them ends. I'm fine with that.
Like, it's really simple. I think that humans have a moral right to unimpeded artistic self-expression assuming it's not endorsing hate speech. I think it's categorically wrong to impede that self-expression when that self-expression doesn't intersect with the duties of a job. Simply saying "the people who leverage this authority you see as fundamentally immoral are reasonable, so there's no problem" doesn't resolve that contradiction.
Those are explicit non-competes, which are a different story (and unenforceable in CA, where all the tech companies/EA are HQed).Its pretty standard, not just at major studios. Most contracts also say you can't pursue similar work for 3 months after leaving which is the real bullshit.
But every time I've left one of those places they've said not to worry about it
I have never heard of some policy of this kind in France.Is this something exclusive to the US, or does anyone have insight in how this is treated in the EU?
The last place I worked for's HQ was in France. They still didn't try and enforce it.Those are explicit non-competes, which are a different story (and unenforceable in CA, where all the tech companies/EA are HQed).
Is this USA specific? I work as a programmer in EU and I didn't have to sign anything similar to this.
nah man it's fine they do have this boot on my neck but they're not applying any pressure right nowJust because something is standard doesn't mean it is good. This is anti-worker
Right, so, pride. Which doesn't count for much in legal proceedings, and is a great way to get caught up in them when they can otherwise easily be avoided. They can't know what is and is not related to someone's job unless they're informed.
I'm not denying that this is the law, I'm saying that the law is evil. I don't see how this is difficult to understand unless you believe that because it is the law, it must be good. Because, lemme be clear here, I'm sure I'd ask permission to do a creative work if I had this clause. Guess what, though. I would hate every second of it and I would abominate having to have done it. I wouldn't think my employer is reasonable for letting me do it, I'd think it's wretched their opinion even matters. Like, understand me-- it's wrong to have to ask people to do this.Right, so, pride. Which doesn't count for much in legal proceedings, and is a great way to get caught up in them when they can otherwise easily be avoided.
People excusing stuff like this should maybe step back and think about whether this is actually worth defending when other companies don't do it, even if they seem supportive(especially when it's supportive at, y'know, their own leisure)
ding ding dingalso 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"
Pretty common practice when you work at big corporations and companies. I once signed an NDA which literally implied that any creations I made outside of work could be:
1. Claimed as property of the company.
or
2. Seen as a violation of the non-compete agreement.
That's essentially the same thing we're talking about here, just in different specific language.I work as a developer/programmer in a separate industry and there's no clause that states all my personal shit outside of work is under the purview of the company I work for. Just standard clauses about how all the proprietary/confidential stuff I touch for my work belongs wholly to the company and non-compete stuff about pulling customers/employees from my current employer to a different company.
People excusing stuff like this should maybe step back and think about whether this is actually worth defending when other companies don't do it, even if they seem supportive(especially when it's supportive at, y'know, their own leisure)
I know for a fact that anything done on the company's premises belongs to the company. Anything done outside of it is fine (at least in France).
I have never heard of some policy of this kind in France.
You have some policy but not ones that gives your employer your Work that has been produced outside work time.
But you could have some rules that could forbide you to have additionnal work outside of work time or forbide you to compete with your employer
The company has no way to know that it has nothing to do with work if they're not informed, and it is again better for everyone involved that it gets settled before it becomes an issue. I'm very confused as to why you're approaching this as though the company can tell the difference between "a painting done on the weekends" vs "an indie game for commercial sale using company hardware" without them being told about it, or why you think trying to parse that after the fact is easier for anyone.You shouldn't have to beg a company you go to work for, when you get hired, to not screw you over legally if you decide to do something creative on your own time. It's establishing an antagonistic relationship right off the bat and positioning the employer and employee as enemies.
There's a difference between using company time and materials to create something related to your job and profiting off of it at their expense, and creating things on your own time that have nothing to do with your job. It's yet another system set up to give corporations de facto ownership of the people who work for them.
Ah, yes, programmers competing with their company by producing art. Read the OP.
And this doesn't strike you as problematic? Just because it's "standard" doesn't make it right.
That's essentially the same thing we're talking about here, just in different specific language.
If you were to try selling a program you made outside of work, I'm pretty sure your employer would want to take a look at it first.