"Employee agrees that any work of authorship prepared by Employee during the Term, or during the one year period following the termination of this Agreement (each, a "Work of Authorship"), shall be a "work made for hire" and Company shall be the sole author of such Work of Authorship and the owner of all of the rights comprised in the copyright of such Work of Authorship."

This clause was in the contract and now that I am no longer working with this person, he said I cannot get a job in my profession for the next year or he will sue.

Hello tpennetta,

The situation you describe is an employment contract, or rather, a noncompete agreement. However, the clause you quoted is specific to ownership, or rights to authorship. While the individual/employer/agreement may specify that you not compete by working for another person for a period of time doing a given thing, it cannot impose any rights to ownership of things created after your employ. In other words, this is extremely ambiguous language.

One of the three elements of a valid contract is consideration; this is the exchange of money or services. Once your employment is terminated, you are no longer receiving payment from this individual, and consideration is lacking. Also, most noncompete clauses specify a definate period of time, which your's does, and a geographical range of influence (within a county for example), which your's does not.

This agreement essentially states that the individual owns anything you create for a year, or that you cannot work for a year. This is unconscionable, or illegal, as you are essentially barred from any type of gainful employment creating such works for a year after employ. In other words, if the agreement is terminated, then the stated rights and conditions thereof are terminated. The agreement contradicts itself, and also leaves you no means by which to earn a living at your profession. Further, this clause does not sufficiently/adequately define the nature of the works, but tends to speak in "blanket" terms; blanket terms are inherantly flawed, over-reaching, and non-specific, hence, hard to enforce.

Please bear in mind, the information/opinion that I have provided is based on the language of the clause you quoted alone. If it is merely part of a larger more inclusive agreement, then the lapses that I isolated may be covered in another section or clause.

I'd consult a contract attorney on this. Contracts cannot be overly ambiguous or create a contradiction and still maintain the force of valid agreement. Just trying to explain the contradiction was confusing. Seek council,

Lawford

The portion you quoted appears to be a "work for hire" clause - which is very common and means that the employer retains all rights to intellectual property that may be created during the employment relationship. For instance, someone hired to write articles for a magazine, or create a video game for a company, or develop a new special kind of lotion, or whatever the situation may be.... the employer is the "owner" of any copyrights, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property, not the employee.

The part about prohibiting you from working in your profession for a year sounds to me like a noncompete clause, which is implicated by the language you quoted, though your contract may contain a noncompete clause. These are also common provisions in employment contracts, but must be reasonably limited.

You can find more information in LawInfo's Free Legal Resource Center here:

http://resources.lawinfo.com/Search.html?q=noncompete

http://resources.lawinfo.com/Search....=work+for+hire