My Website designers want to pull my website off can i stop them?

[Net Links]

I went to a company called punkyduck in January after being let down by 2 other web companies and agreed in a propsal that i would pay a £500 deposit and they would complete all sites and then a month after they had gone live they would start billing me the monthly payment,

They have done 2 sites already out of 4 one of them we have had a lot of negitive come back with little errors like spelling and miles on the site which have now been changed,

For anything to be changed on the 2 sites they will charge me for text which we agreed site one which is just an introduction page to our company would need to change as we get bigger, but there now saying its chargerble,

Now they have stopped work completly because of concerns over them getting their payments, the reason why i wanted these payment terms was to make sure the sites were done right and also for because of the time we are having as the recession is hitting us all that if one didnt work at least we stood two other chances,

i have tried to negotate with them and said we will not go with the last site and just have 3 sites to lower the liabilty saving a total of £2250 but now they want to start billing me now and change the payment plan amount

Can they do this and what else can i do to try and make them continue the work?

 

[faultydesktop]

If I was you I would change all Passwords -

• Hosting Account Details
• FTP Details

In this case once these are changed they have no access to this.

I would then come to terms with them and tell them what you have done and try and do something from there.

 

[GeekSRV]

Do they have control of your domain names & webspace?

 

[Net Links]

Do they have control of your domain names & webspace?

All my domain names are registered with fasthost but i believe they have transfered them to their server but all my email is run through the fasthost set up

 

[faultydesktop]

Netlinks

If i was you I would get in to the server and take a back up off everything in case worst does come to the worst. Eg. All Code.

 

[MartCactus]

They have done 2 sites already out of 4 one of them we have had a lot of negitive come back with little errors like spelling and miles on the site which have now been changed,

Out of interest, were the spelling errors their fault?

In most cases we get the copy for sites supplied to us by clients as MS Word docs or similar. If those have spelling mistakes in them, they often end up on the site (unless we spot them). We obviously rely on our clients to proof read what they are sending us (often its many pages, or legal terms and conditions etc etc, so we'd charge a fortune to read and correct it for them).

 

[fisicx]

They own the code and they will always own the code unless they sign it over to you.

You own the content that you supplied, they own the content that they wrote and any images they brought/created.

Because they also host the sites (a bad move) then they can do what they like, you can't stop them. All you can do is negotiate.

I am surprised that they are charging you to make the changes, this sort of thing normally come free during the development and testing phase and final payment is only made on delivery.

 

[Net Links]

Out of interest, were the spelling errors their fault?

In most cases we get the copy for sites supplied to us by clients as MS Word docs or similar. If those have spelling mistakes in them, they often end up on the site (unless we spot them). We obviously rely on our clients to proof read what they are sending us (often its many pages, or legal terms and conditions etc etc, so we'd charge a fortune to read and correct it for them).

They agreed to proof read all text before they put it on the site for me i sent them by word and i explained to them i am a little dislexic and sometimes get my words mixed up i.e there their so they included that in their price as far as i am aware,

i am more of a man with the ideas and can get them put into practise but my spelling and grammer is not that great.

some quotes taken from a major courier forum below

"Seriously... you can get spell checkers for free these days. How on earth does he expect to be taken seriously as a "creditable company" if his grammar and spelling continues to be so atrocious! *"

"I don't of many "professional" designers that can't spell - or use a spell checker "

"I'd refuse to pay them, you don't do a drop at the wrong place and then say, "well, it's nearly right - pay up"

"As the owner of the site Simon is the publisher, and legally responsible for everything on it. Assuming he asked the developers to build it for him, and they didn't just build it and offer it to him, he almost certainly owns the copyright on all the content and any special code. And assuming he had a proper contract with them he would have 'signed off' the site before they got their whole payment. So it's their responsibility to get it right but it's his responsibility to check it properly"

So now i think you can see why i do not really want to pay them until all our completed in the first place because for the courier site that has taken a major bump in the business.

And their wanting to change the terms now to me paying the monthly figure now while the other 2 sites are being made,

i really cant work that one out

 

[fisicx]

As I've alreadt said, you do not own the code nor do you own anything they have created unless it specifically says so in the contract. If you have accepted the site then you own them the money. If it is wrong then your should not have accepted the site. It is their responsibility to deliver a working, functional site not to proof read the copy unless it is in the contract. Just because they said they would look over the text doesn't absolve you of checking every single word before accepting the completed site and it being published.

Did the site go live before full acceptance and testing?

 

[Net Links]

As I've alreadt said, you do not own the code nor do you own anything they have created unless it specifically says so in the contract. If you have accepted the site then you own them the money. If it is wrong then your should not have accepted the site. It is their responsibility to deliver a working, functional site not to proof read the copy unless it is in the contract. Just because they said they would look over the text doesn't absolve you of checking every single word before accepting the completed site and it being published.

Did the site go live before full acceptance and testing?

Because i live in scunthorpe and they are based in ipswich they asked me if the designs were ok after they had coded that they put the 2 sites online so i could test them and check all the functions they agreed they still had to work on the site but it was able to do the basic functions while other items were still in devleopment, their are still a couple of things waiting to be placed on their but they are saying they wont do them and take it off the amount, but i havent agreed to that nor there new payment plan and now they have stopped the work on the other sites.

so are you saying if they wrote a propsal and i signed it i am liable but their not liable to keeping to the agreement of the propsal that they gave gave me to sign?

because then surely if they can drop out without completing what they put in it my signiture doesnt mean anything either?

confused??????

 

[fisicx]

I agree that they should carry out the work as agree and I wouldn't be impressed I someone tried to charge me extra during development but you original question was about them taking the sites offline. They can do this at any time, even if you have paid them.

They are hosting the sites so have complete control. You can't even take the sites and ask someone else to make the changes because it's not your code. They really have you by the short and curlies. All you can do is insist they stick to the contract but you can't physically stop them takling the sites of the server.

 

[Net Links]

Thank for all the advice i have now recieved a email from them saying if i dont agree to their terms by 9am monday morning and i dont agree to them sending an invoice to be paid within 14 days that they will pull all site off by next friday.

This is because i have said to them i would like to speak to my solicitor before i agree to any changes for the agreed contract but my solicitor is on holiday until Monday,

So basically they dont want a solicitor involved, which will cost them more money aswell as me

i have insisted they give me more time as i have the right to gain legal advice about this so we will just have to wait and see but if anyone wants to let me know if they can design at least one site before the end of the month offers are welcome because i will be looking if i cant sort this out

 

[MartCactus]

They agreed to proof read all text before they put it on the site for me i sent them by word and i explained to them i am a little dislexic and sometimes get my words mixed up i.e there their so they included that in their price as far as i am aware,

i am more of a man with the ideas and can get them put into practise but my spelling and grammer is not that great.

But that is on the contract - that they'll proof read? I just know that sometimes we get customers send us a page of text for their T&Cs of legal clauses and then complain months later that there are typos in it - like they've expected us to read their legal contracts and correct bits of it!!!

"As the owner of the site Simon is the publisher, and legally responsible for everything on it. Assuming he asked the developers to build it for him, and they didn't just build it and offer it to him, he almost certainly owns the copyright on all the content and any special code.

Whoever wrote this doesn't know much about copyright law.

If you hire someone to build a website for you THEY own the copyright of what they create UNLESS the contract provides otherwise. If an employee builds it for you the situation is different (the employer usually owns it) but not if you hire a contractor or external company.

If you hire a photographer to take pictures at your wedding - guess who owns the copyright? In the absense of a contractual term to the contrary, the photographer does.

It might not seem fair, or obvious, but that is the law.

Of course if you provided materials to him (logo, page copy, etc) you'd own copyright of that. But if you just provided "ideas" as the ideas man, well, its very difficult to claim copyright of ideas.

But in answer to your original question - if they are hosting the site and believe that they've adhered to the contract, they are able to pull the website off. You could of course then go to court to claim they've breached the contract etc and you should get your deposit back... but I think its one of those messy ones where its unlikely to be a black and white decision.

 

[Net Links]

all i want is for them to keep to the contract that was agreed in the first place and finish building all the site,

 

[Net Links]

i have had 2 other website burn me and i am commited to other business bills because of them these promised everything again, and now i am in the same position so so angry and i am not allowed to put another word!!!!

 

[cvs]

You didn't mention being dissatisfied with the design just the content. If you can, you need to settle with this company, download your files, upload them to another hosting company, and hire a computer savvy teenager at minimal cost to fix the problems with the content.

In future, don't go for a package like this. Either design your own web site or hire a developer on the express condition that you will own the resulting files (a website is just a bunch of files). Then you can upload (or have someone upload) those files to any hosting company. You may want from time to time to change your hosting company. It's important you own the files. Typically, you may want to move to a new hosting company because their charges are lower or because their servers are more reliable.

 

[Net Links]

You didn't mention being dissatisfied with the design just the content. If you can, you need to settle with this company, download your files, upload them to another hosting company, and hire a computer savvy teenager at minimal cost to fix the problems with the content.

In future, don't go for a package like this. Either design your own web site or hire a developer on the express condition that you will own the resulting files (a website is just a bunch of files). Then you can upload (or have someone upload) those files to any hosting company. You may want from time to time to change your hosting company. It's important you own the files. Typically, you may want to move to a new hosting company because their charges are lower or because their servers are more reliable.

The design and layouts are great they still need touching up, it is just the fact that they made an agreement and they are not sticking to it now, like i have said i asked for time to seek legal advise and told them my solicitors away till monday but they insist i have got to agree to the new terms by monday 9am or the sites go offline

 

[Vizcom]

I personally don't think using a solicitor will help you here. Whether you like it or not you need to compromise. If it is only the spelling and grammar that is a problem this can easily be resolved. If the sites are CMS and you use Firefox as your web browser it will highlight spelling mistakes but not grammar. If cash is an issue why not approach your local university and ask a english student to re-write and proof it for you. If cash isn't an issue why not approach a copywriter on this site and ask for a quote?

 

[Net Links]

I personally don't think using a solicitor will help you here. Whether you like it or not you need to compromise. If it is only the spelling and grammar that is a problem this can easily be resolved. If the sites are CMS and you use Firefox as your web browser it will highlight spelling mistakes but not grammar. If cash is an issue why not approach your local university and ask a english student to re-write and proof it for you. If cash isn't an issue why not approach a copywriter on this site and ask for a quote?

Well the main thing is that i have an agreement from them we signed stating they will complete four websites for me and then i start paying monthly installments a month after they have gone live,

they are now wanting to change the agreement when they have only done 2 sites,

The reason i was willing to do this that if i knew when all sites were completed it would bring enough money in to cover the monthly cost, but now they want a £100 less a month with 1 operational site the other site was a holding page

I would never of agreed to this in the first place if i knew they were going to do this, and gone somewhere else

 

[Veritas]

I am dealing with a similar matter for a client and have obtained a full refund for the Client due to delays. That isn't to say you are in a similar position. However, it seems to be a case of determining exactly what was agreed and you don't need to be as pessimistic as some have suggested.

If it was agreed they would do proof reading, and if deadlines were agreed and time was of the essence, or that they would complete 4 websites etc - they are in breach of contract.

Once your solicitor writes to them, and hopefully they appoint a solicitor too, you should be able to reach a settlement.

If you need more info send me a PM.

 

[Net Links]

If it was agreed they would do proof reading, and if deadlines were agreed and time was of the essence, or that they would complete 4 websites etc - they are in breach of contract.

Once your solicitor writes to them, and hopefully they appoint a solicitor too, you should be able to reach a settlement.

If you need more info send me a PM.

I have got a copy of the proposal stating on the first page

Net Links

"A proposal for the design and build of 4 websites for Net Links."

Also cost of £9000 doesnt state if vat is plus or included

then i have emails confirming i have paid a deposit and them stating they want to change the payment plan from £700 a month to £600 but starting now instead of a month after all 4 are complete.

My solicitor is top dolla chap hes done my T&C'S with deposit and payment to match the web designers proposal so if they dont cover what they stated in the first place and they do pull the sites off he will not get his money and i will have to close down which i dont want to because i cant put one complaint about him, so i am hoping he will find a way of getting this back on track, so we all get a return from it,

its not that i am not willing to pay but i want to stick to the orginal agreement

 

[NouveauContour]

I am dealing with a similar matter for a client and have obtained a full refund for the Client due to delays. That isn't to say you are in a similar position. However, it seems to be a case of determining exactly what was agreed and you don't need to be as pessimistic as some have suggested.

If it was agreed they would do proof reading, and if deadlines were agreed and time was of the essence, or that they would complete 4 websites etc - they are in breach of contract.

Once your solicitor writes to them, and hopefully they appoint a solicitor too, you should be able to reach a settlement.

If you need more info send me a PM.

I agree with Veritas. My own contracts when I supply web design state that I handover copyright of all artworking and code etc upon full and final payment. I take 50% deposit for all work (in case the client goes bust etc so I don't work for nothing and can pay my developer!). I NEVER change from the agreed contract unless both myself and the client talk and agree changes then I mail that over and attach it to the contract so we both agree. It seems they've broken their agreement by not meeting the agreed terms set out at the beginning and it isn't very good service. Rest assured, their name will get round offering poor service like that.

 

[justintime]

If the terms of contract state specifically that they will proof read your documents and that payments won't start until the sites are live then, imo, they will break the terms of the contract if they now want to change that. (IANAL) Did they specify an expected time scale for you to provide material for the sites? It could be that they feel too much time has passed and they now want to start getting an income from the work provided.

Do you have control panel access to the site or username/password to access the files? If so they will be relatively easy to move to another hosting provider, if you can't resolve the problem with the developer. I can help with this if requiired. However it would certainly be better to resolve the issue with the current developer first, if at all possible.

If you want to pm me the website addresses I will certainly take a look for you and advise further. Also if its just a question of correcting spelling and grammar would they accept updated word files? I would be happy to undertake this at minimal cost for you if it helps.

 

[fisicx]

Even if you do come to an agreement with te developer you still need to remember that you own nothing. Every line of code, every image and all the words they wrote belong to them. It follows therefore that while they are your host they can switch off the sites in an instant.

You still haven't clarified if the contract explictly states that they will proff read and correct the copy. If it doesn't then it seems perfectly reasonable for them to charge for making the corrections. However, I really can't see them agreeing to such a clause, it could means hours of work if your copy is poor.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

I went to a company called punkyduck in January after being let down by 2 other web companies and agreed in a propsal that i would pay a £500 deposit and they would complete all sites and then a month after they had gone live they would start billing me the monthly payment,

They have done 2 sites already out of 4 one of them we have had a lot of negitive come back with little errors like spelling and miles on the site which have now been changed,

For anything to be changed on the 2 sites they will charge me for text which we agreed site one which is just an introduction page to our company would need to change as we get bigger, but there now saying its chargerble,

Now they have stopped work completly because of concerns over them getting their payments, the reason why i wanted these payment terms was to make sure the sites were done right and also for because of the time we are having as the recession is hitting us all that if one didnt work at least we stood two other chances,

i have tried to negotate with them and said we will not go with the last site and just have 3 sites to lower the liabilty saving a total of £2250 but now they want to start billing me now and change the payment plan amount

Can they do this and what else can i do to try and make them continue the work?

This seems all wrong to me. As a website designer, I know that there is a "state of flux" for while during the build, where we present things to cistomers, and they bounce back comments to us. This sometimes results in a slight change of direction. We expect this, it normally happens. We prefer it like that, because the 2 way bouncing arround actually ensures the clinet gets the product they want

Its amazing how many jobs we pick up from designers dissapearing, or getting difficult during a build. The next pet hate is designers registering and hosting the domains in their own names - which helps no one at all

We also appreciate that in the months and weeks just after the build, there is the likleyhood that if there will be a change, its going to happen then - thats why we factor in for minor changes and edits within the first few months

I am struggling to understand the attitude of a company, that doesnt want to please the customer. Most of my cistomers come back for repeat business, or recommend me to my next customers. Sure we have been sent files full of grammar and spelling mistakes. We either re-write them, or send them back, or suggest a copywriter etc.. It isnt the end of the world, and for the ammounts of money you are talking about, dealing with this ought to be an insignificance. Sometimes (with out it totally taking the micky) I have to take a few extra hours on the chin, because, a happy customer is worth more in terms of advertising and MY satisfaction of doing a job well than the money or the time and effort it costs me

I left you a message, give me a shout. it will be interesting for us to help you work through this

 

[cvs]

Even if you do come to an agreement with te developer you still need to remember that you own nothing. Every line of code, every image and all the words they wrote belong to them.

That sounds like an assumption. I personally would not enter into a contract for website development where I did not own the resulting files. I suggest Net Links checks his contract to ascertain who does have copyright. If that's the developer, then its outrageous and Net Links should get out of that contract ASAP. Given the amount Net Links has paid, he should be able to move those files to any hosting company he wants and if he's locked into a contract that says differently, it's iniquitous (not necessarily illegal but definitely unfair).

Net Links: the suggestions by JustInTime are really great and I recommend you follow up on them.

 

[Dawg]

This seems all wrong to me. As a website designer, I know that there is a "state of flux" for while during the build, where we present things to cistomers, and they bounce back comments to us. This sometimes results in a slight change of direction. We expect this, it normally happens. We prefer it like that, because the 2 way bouncing arround actually ensures the clinet gets the product they want

Its amazing how many jobs we pick up from designers dissapearing, or getting difficult during a build. The next pet hate is designers registering and hosting the domains in their own names - which helps no one at all

We also appreciate that in the months and weeks just after the build, there is the likleyhood that if there will be a change, its going to happen then - thats why we factor in for minor changes and edits within the first few months

I am struggling to understand the attitude of a company, that doesnt want to please the customer. Most of my cistomers come back for repeat business, or recommend me to my next customers. Sure we have been sent files full of grammar and spelling mistakes. We either re-write them, or send them back, or suggest a copywriter etc.. It isnt the end of the world, and for the ammounts of money you are talking about, dealing with this ought to be an insignificance. Sometimes (with out it totally taking the micky) I have to take a few extra hours on the chin, because, a happy customer is worth more in terms of advertising and MY satisfaction of doing a job well than the money or the time and effort it costs me

I left you a message, give me a shout. it will be interesting for us to help you work through this

Good post, and it does make me wonder if there is another side to the story. After all, why should this design company be acting irrationally? I wonder if, for whatever reasons, they might have decided to call it a day on this client, having hit the brick wall.
I've no idea, and no way of finding out. It's just that there are always two sides to a story, and we have seen part only.


(No nasturtiums were cast or hurt in the making of this post.)

 

[cvs]

I am struggling to understand the attitude of a company, that doesnt want to please the customer. Most of my cistomers come back for repeat business, or recommend me to my next customers. Sure we have been sent files full of grammar and spelling mistakes. We either re-write them, or send them back, or suggest a copywriter etc.. It isnt the end of the world, and for the ammounts of money you are talking about, dealing with this ought to be an insignificance. Sometimes (with out it totally taking the micky) I have to take a few extra hours on the chin, because, a happy customer is worth more in terms of advertising and MY satisfaction of doing a job well than the money or the time and effort it costs me

I thoroughly agree with the above. Clearly, punkyduck is an unprofessional company. I hope lots of people read this thread and stay well clear of punkyduck.

PS. I looked at punkyducks website and I was blinded by the fluorescent pink. It is so distasteful to my eyes. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go with this company. I'm also skeptical that their client list is accurate. Did they really design the websites of Egg, Marks and Spencer, and Toshiba? I very much doubt it! Someone from punkyduck please correct me if I'm wrong! Maybe the lawyers on this forum could advise whether you have a claim for fraud if the website lies about its client list?

 

[ORDERED WEB]

That sounds like an assumption. I personally would not enter into a contract for website development where I did not own the resulting files.

This is not a black and white area.

As a designer myself, I dont usually care if my customer has the code

However this needs to be thought about considering the nature of the code and the site


Example - if you come to me and say
"i want you to develop XYX module for my site, we intend to sell the module within my business sector"

then the price wil be considerably more than if you said:

"I want you to develop a module - we feel it has a place in the market, which you may be able to expoit yourselves - howabout we get together and look at it"

Where we might even code it for free on the basis that your expertise in the sector + my coding skils = more than the individual efforts
____

The next consideration is that the designer may be buying licenced code from elsewhere as part of the build - in that sense, neither you or the designer will ever own the code

Waht I would say is that 99% of the time most of the stuff web designers are doing doesnt even merit the discussion, and for a developer to make copyright and ownership of code an issue is a myopic attitude

 

[fisicx]

That sounds like an assumption. I personally would not enter into a contract for website development where I did not own the resulting files.... Given the amount Net Links has paid, he should be able to move those files to any hosting company he wants...

Agree, I should have made that clear but I think you will discover that and awful lot of developers use proprietry code which means you may not get the whole shebang. So for example you might get the site and the DB but not the back end that does all the processing. In addition if they have brought images then they hold the license and I don't think istock allow you to pass on the images.

In any case, even if they give you everything I believe they still hold IP rights (I have to check up on this).

 

[ORDERED WEB]

Good post, and it does make me wonder if there is another side to the story. After all, why should this design company be acting irrationally? I wonder if, for whatever reasons, they might have decided to call it a day on this client, having hit the brick wall.
I've no idea, and no way of finding out. It's just that there are always two sides to a story, and we have seen part only.

I see this week in week out, some designers have very very strange attitudes to customer service and also have a very odd work ethic

I was on the phone to one guy a couple of months ago, who registered a companies site in his own name, and then let the domain lapse (purposefully) after demandinga hugley unreasonable ammount of money to transfer the domain to the rightful owner. The guy had been paying throgh his teeth all the way through the process

IN the end, a stiff letter to him and his server company resolved it, but meanwhile sales were lost and the domain was disrupted


Best of all - the wed designer couldnt see what he was doing wrong
Beggars belief

 

[cvs]

As a designer myself, I dont usually care if my customer has the code

However this needs to be thought about considering the nature of the code and the site

Given the amount Net Links has paid, he ought to own the code. He didn't get a cut price deal because the developer was going to profit-share in the business. There are plenty of developers (like you) who at this price point would gladly allow him to own the files.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

Given the amount Net Links has paid, he ought to own the code. He didn't get a cut price deal because the developer was going to profit-share in the business. There are plenty of developers (like you) who at this price point would gladly allow him to own the files.

There are plenty of developers that write code (joomla modules for example) and just share them - which I think is a brilliant attitude, and for sure will get them a lot of business long term

 

[cvs]

The lessons from all this are:
(1) Never ever let your contract for website development be tied into a contract for website hosting. You want to be able to move your host whenever it suits you.
(2) To be able to move your site,you need to ensure you have the copyright on the work product of your web site developer.

 

[cvs]

But we still don't know at this time whether Net Links does own the files so far produced by the developer. Net Links: please could you clarify?

 

[cvs]

Agree, I should have made that clear but I think you will discover that and awful lot of developers use proprietry code which means you may not get the whole shebang.

Accepted, but I think ithe practice you describe exploits customers who do not read the fine print. There are plenty of developers who will not rip you off via fine print and will give you the whole shebang so you can mount the site on any host of your choice.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

Accepted, but I think ithe practice you describe exploits customers who do not read the fine print. There are plenty of developers who will not rip you off via fine print and will give you the whole shebang so you can mount the site on any host of your choice.

using 3rd party commercially licenced code also offers a mutitude of advantages - like updates and security patches etc.

Example the Protox credit card module for e-commerc stores. You would want that to be buletproof secure, and patched if a vunerability emmerged!

 

[cvs]

using 3rd party commercially licenced code also offers a mutitude of advantages - like updates and security patches etc.

Example the Protox credit card module for e-commerc stores. You would want that to be buletproof secure, and patched if a vunerability emmerged!

I don't fully understand all the above but why would the entire package not be portable to another host, given that the client has paid for the entire development costs and has not received a discount by way of some profit-share on the business?

 

[ORDERED WEB]

I don't fully understand all the above but why would the entire package not be portable to another host, given that the client has paid for the entire development costs and has not received a discount by way of some profit-share on the business?

IN theory yes, in practice some 3rd party commercial licenses are "per server" some "per domain" which throws a small spanner in the works. It never normaly is more than a short term practacle issue though

The point I am making is that a website usually consists of a mix of licencing
- photography
- 3rd party code snippets & frameworks
- Copy (may be licenced to a poet or copywriter etc.)
- the agreement you have with your developr

The potential for inadvertant breaches of licence are huge
Example - I licence to you a photograph for use on your brochures and yoru website, at a specific domain, with a specific usage, on a contact page

If you re-use the photo on a new domain, on the front page, and you edit the photo as well - then you are in berach of my licence. If the developer buys such a photo, and then hands over the site to you, and then you re-use the photo, both you and the developer are potentially in breach of my licence with the developer

There are so many different sorts of licence, some developers take the vew that handing over the whole lot increases his exposure to licencing issues down the line too much

I shoot wedding photo's, and no mater how black or white you make the copyright / usage issue, people always understand it the way they want to - the photo is mine I can do what I want with it..

Same applies to music, lyrics, poetry, code - what people think they can do, what they can physically do, and what they are legaly allowed to do - are 3 diffeent things

 

[Net Links]

But we still don't know at this time whether Net Links does own the files so far produced by the developer. Net Links: please could you clarify?

to tell you the truth it doesnt say if the files our mine or theirs, only the pricing structure and what they provide, somebody has already looked at my site, and has stated that they havent covered the disability act, which in their proposal states they do, then just the payment scheme