if you happen to work for nice people, sure. otherwise it's yet another club that a shitty boss can hold over your head.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
EA (And Other Studios) Apparently Have Policies That Require Developers To Gather Permission Before Producing Any Creative Works Outside Of Work
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
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'm getting flashbacks to that time we were supposed to be angry that Ubisoft reused a height map, (or according to some people, ANY asset), for FC:Primal.
Simply put, calling people who're explaining to you the reality of this, aka, spreading more knowledge about how companies work, victims of stockhom syndrome because they didn't immediately think "EA bad" isn't it chief.
Last edited:
Do you have any examples of this? Because I and others posting in this very thread have literally never seen this be a problem.
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)
Feels like this thread and the source that inspired it exist solely to produce ignorant, overly histrionic reactions. Job well done.
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.
These are very easy to follow:
-Don't use company resources to make your own shit to sell
-Don't sell a competing product while you work at a company
You follow that, you're probably set.
It's a book about working in the game industry. While it sucks, that's not unrelated to his current job.
OP
OP
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.
i get that you think this kind of abuse is OK, but it's still abuse
It's pretty much always in the contract that you sign before working at a place. And before you sign it, you make the deal to remove it/get the exception (like I've always done). Except I'm a lazy fuck and my body doesn't move with my ambitions. Working (for myself) in my free time? Hell no xD *plays some games, watch some anime...*
Yeah, this is the case at my job, and I work in the TV news industry as a marketer. I technically can't even have a YouTube channel because it's considered competitive video work.
I also have to get permission just to get a second job, like if I want to drive Uber or something, despite that being a completely different industry.
I'm hoping to quit by the end of the month lol
I also have to get permission just to get a second job, like if I want to drive Uber or something, despite that being a completely different industry.
I'm hoping to quit by the end of the month lol
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.
Yes, it is, I agree.
You clearly haven't filled a creative working role for a large company in the EU. :)
I've worked for Disney, Nickelodeon, and other smaller companies, and I can tell you I've never had a to sign a clause resembling this kind of idiocracy. :D
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
But every time I've left one of those places they've said not to worry about it
It should be perfectly fine if there aren't in-house callouts in the book. If I wrote a book or a fucking song for that matter about the defense industry, I could see Lockheed legal taking a look to see if there are any corporate "secrets" written, but other than that, they shouldn't have a stranglehold on your outside life like that.
Written, but not released.
I think it sucks and he should be able to release it, and legally he would win a case, but this is not a situation where EA is getting in the way of unrelated material. A current EA employee releasing a book about working in the games industry might very well pose legal problems for the publisher.
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.
Those are explicit non-competes, which are a different story (and unenforceable in CA, where all the tech companies/EA are HQed).
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 last place I worked for's HQ was in France. They still didn't try and enforce it.
I guess, because these kind of things would be laughable (and sad at the same time) for me living in the Netherlands. :)
nah man it's fine they do have this boot on my neck but they're not applying any pressure right now
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)
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)
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.
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.
Just connecting this to a concept that is traditionally viewed as sinful doesn't make me suddenly be inclined to enjoy what I perceive as an intrusion into my life and a horrendous overreach. I will still loathe it with every fiber of my being.
This exactly.
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.
They don't usually surveil you or go into your portfolio to screw with you, but if you do something successful or that receives attention, they might reach out to you "to sort it out".
1. Claimed as property of the company.
or
2. Seen as a violation of the non-compete agreement.
They don't usually surveil you or go into your portfolio to screw with you, but if you do something successful or that receives attention, they might reach out to you "to sort it out".
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.
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).
It seems to be an US thing. I feel sorry for them if true.
I never have heard of a policy in the US where company outright owns your creative work outside of your job. Not unless you created that work with company tools/software or during work hours. I think the ownership bit is Hobbes' own interpretation of the tweets.
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.
Ah, yes, programmers competing with their company by producing art. Read the OP.
Oh yeah, it is problematic and a f*cking aberration. But it isn't changing anytime soon because literally every corporation has some of these practices to some degree and all around the world.
Unions help in some cases.
There are lots of these situations. I've never had any issues even though I've signed contracts with really shady clauses (I am more careful now, but yup, read those non-compete agreements!)
If I was selling a program I made outside of work, they couldn't do shit about it because there's nothing written into my contract prohibiting that. They could maybe get Big Mad and fire me for a bogus reason, but that's it.
We aren't talking about the same thing in "different specific language" here. We are arguing completely different things.