Non Competes and Game Artists.
polycounter lvl 18
The idea is so someone can't transfer inside knowledge from one product to another within a certain time frame. To keep the competition as focused on the market area the product is focused on from gaining inside information about your current employers product.
I bring fourth that non-competes for artist at least need to be more precise versus a general catch all. We use a process to create assets that is solely individual. The only areas we could possibly be of harm is knowing something about what the competition is doing, and what in house tools are used.
As such, should we not ask if to sign a Non compete to have one more specific to not being allowed to share outside information in the above areas? Versus not being able to work for "x" number of months (or years)?
Meaning we should be able to jump from studio to studio. Where we must stop legally in a non compete is any disclosure of information that could be used to give your new employer a inside glance into the old one. Or working on a title that in the same specific area as the old (not this "games" in general idea like Ubisoft attempts, more specific to not a another "FPS". To paraphrase what I mean, "mums the word".
EA may be many things, but they at least recognize this [ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the games on which these people work are protected by other legal means, such as copyright. Therefore, a confidentiality undertaking is more than sufficient to protect the business
[/ QUOTE ]
Now going a bit further with the subject on hand, an artists freetime is their own and can be choosen how to be spent. This should not bar them from working on personal or group projects as long as again they wont compete or harm directly with the company. Meaning if an artist wanted to partake of a mod or contract work, any project they worked on would have to be limited to a genre that wouldn't compete with the day jobs focus. At most, the artist must be obligated to inform their employer of the current side or mod work to verify its a market area that wont be in competition.
We all realize, jumping ship constantly is part of the being artists in this day and age. But being held by anchors to standing still is ludicrous to the point of paranoia and a method of control by the current employer. If a person is obligated not to being able to work for X amount of time in their area of expertise, it allows the company a more unbalanced control of the persons life choices beyond what any employment contract should be able to cover. In other words, even though you may want to move on, ideally you could quit before or take another position somewhere else, you will now be more along the lines of a serf to the company as you face a period with potentially no income.
:::
So enough of my "jibber jabber" as it where and to the questions.
1. How many professionals out there have negotiated this area of their contracts before signing? Either by visiting legal council or discussing it with the company to come to a better balanced arrangement?
2. Where is my arguement above flawed? The only thing I can think of is a company who is unwilling to compromise. In that case I question if they are like this, who says what other areas will produce even more stress on you the worker?
In other words, if they arent willing to compromise, I suggest at some level they know this gives them a unbalanced control of the employees future. Since the employee will be less willing to quit, they can take advantage of this by having a reduced workplace quality of life.
There are more fish in the sea. Maybe not as glamorous a fish, but one what would taste better.
I bring fourth that non-competes for artist at least need to be more precise versus a general catch all. We use a process to create assets that is solely individual. The only areas we could possibly be of harm is knowing something about what the competition is doing, and what in house tools are used.
As such, should we not ask if to sign a Non compete to have one more specific to not being allowed to share outside information in the above areas? Versus not being able to work for "x" number of months (or years)?
Meaning we should be able to jump from studio to studio. Where we must stop legally in a non compete is any disclosure of information that could be used to give your new employer a inside glance into the old one. Or working on a title that in the same specific area as the old (not this "games" in general idea like Ubisoft attempts, more specific to not a another "FPS". To paraphrase what I mean, "mums the word".
EA may be many things, but they at least recognize this [ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the games on which these people work are protected by other legal means, such as copyright. Therefore, a confidentiality undertaking is more than sufficient to protect the business
[/ QUOTE ]
Now going a bit further with the subject on hand, an artists freetime is their own and can be choosen how to be spent. This should not bar them from working on personal or group projects as long as again they wont compete or harm directly with the company. Meaning if an artist wanted to partake of a mod or contract work, any project they worked on would have to be limited to a genre that wouldn't compete with the day jobs focus. At most, the artist must be obligated to inform their employer of the current side or mod work to verify its a market area that wont be in competition.
We all realize, jumping ship constantly is part of the being artists in this day and age. But being held by anchors to standing still is ludicrous to the point of paranoia and a method of control by the current employer. If a person is obligated not to being able to work for X amount of time in their area of expertise, it allows the company a more unbalanced control of the persons life choices beyond what any employment contract should be able to cover. In other words, even though you may want to move on, ideally you could quit before or take another position somewhere else, you will now be more along the lines of a serf to the company as you face a period with potentially no income.
:::
So enough of my "jibber jabber" as it where and to the questions.
1. How many professionals out there have negotiated this area of their contracts before signing? Either by visiting legal council or discussing it with the company to come to a better balanced arrangement?
2. Where is my arguement above flawed? The only thing I can think of is a company who is unwilling to compromise. In that case I question if they are like this, who says what other areas will produce even more stress on you the worker?
In other words, if they arent willing to compromise, I suggest at some level they know this gives them a unbalanced control of the employees future. Since the employee will be less willing to quit, they can take advantage of this by having a reduced workplace quality of life.
There are more fish in the sea. Maybe not as glamorous a fish, but one what would taste better.
Replies
Just curious what you think of that hypothetical scenario, assuming it's even a "valid" one
what if the company you're working for has developed a particular method for, say, building high and low res characters for normal mapping that works better than the generally accepted methods. Say this method is a guarded secret and enables the company to cut down normal map production time by 25%. You work there, they teach you the method, and you work it into your existing work flow. Should you be able to then carry that method over to an outside project or contract job? You may not necessarily share the secret with anyone, but someone else would be benefitting from a technique developed by the company.
Just curious what you think of that hypothetical scenario, assuming it's even a "valid" one
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless that tool is in house, Im not sure how you could call it a safely guarded secretly. If it's in house, as an artist Im not sure you could reproduce the same tool (unless its say a script). This may be where the technical artist and regular artist would differ for non compete stipulations.
As it is, if your obligated to working in another genre area, Im not sure what arguement your former emplyer could give. Your current companies (say working on a RTS due in year) being able to speed up their process wont effect your old companies (working on a fps due in 6 months).
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9364
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7985
Since many here don't work in California,and given how this point was even stressed as being legal (and can hold up in court) once during a IGDA meeting I attented. Simply overlooking this wont make it a non issue.
It wont dissappear, and depending on what you hope to acheive at company "x", it seems logical to me that you should pay a bit more attention of the stipulations it creates.
Don't mean to piss on your fireworks Oxy, but as far as Im concerned this is a completely non issue. Contracts? Honestly man I bet most people barely even read them. There was all sorts of stuff in my last contract. Shit like all work I ever did whilst employed by them was theirs. It's all just a load of bollocks. There to be completely ignored as far as Im concerned. I think you're stressing about something that is a complete non problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes this
Oxy - stop worrying!
I agree with Kevin. Programmers tend to be the golden boys. If a whole programming team leaves and goes to another company, as in the EA-Ubisoft Montreal case, this would probably warrant a company taking action. Artists on the other hand seem to be undervalued and viewed with a dime-a-dozen mentality. Thus nobody really gives a shit about them. Unless of course they are someone like DaZ or Kenneth Scott.
Now stop yer worrying and show us some 3d art! Yarrr