Freelance design precedents: an ACID response

This morning Class 99 hosted an incisive and somewhat provocative piece by Barbara Cookson (here) which was prompted by ACID's generic precedent agreement for freelance designers.  Below, without further ado, we bring you this speedy and constructive response from ACID CEO Dids Macdonald:

"One of ACID’s primary objectives is to provide self-help IP tools for its members and the wider community, one of which is a set of precedent agreements. However, we recognise, with the myriad of precedent agreements out there, that you cannot have a “vanilla” approach to support sound commercial relationships on which both sides can monetise IP fairly. Barbara Cookson comments, “ACID offer Freelance Designer Agreements to save you ££’s”, I am not aware of anything on our website that says this. On the contrary, ACID’s advice is ALWAYS to seek the advice of an IP professional when using precedent agreements so they work for the individual – that is why we have set up a specialist IP legal hotline which has received literally thousands of calls for which our IP specialists have provided initial pro-bono advice. 

This is also why our agreements always come with the proviso that these are basic precedent agreements which are a starting point to which bespoke terms can be added and, more importantly legally CHECKED! Usually within the free time period that ACID has negotiated on behalf of its members with its Accredited Law firms, they are able to have a chat with the ACID member, ensuring that the agreement meets their needs and this can then form the basis for a bespoke set of terms and conditions of trading their IP. And they can be re-usable and built upon for their future needs (again, with specialist advice). Rarely are two situations or sets of circumstances the same. In the situation that a designer does not want to assign their rights for £1 and, of course this is a valid comment by Barbara, during the free legal consultation time, an ACID Accredited IP lawyer can discuss this and find out exactly what the user of the agreement wishes to amend to meet their needs. Providing agreements that fit the bill and provide a level playing field for both sides of an agreement is paramount. 

Take the ACID Licence/Royalty Agreement. This took a year to create and, as with all our agreements, it was constructed and approved by an IP specialist legal team. Faced with a massive “template” 50 page licence agreement tome (which looked like an amalgamation of many terms from a varied background of agreements “cut and pasted” into one) we set about our task. We spoke to manufacturers, we spoke to designers, we spoke to lawyers and I took a pink marker through any unfathomable “legalese” that no-one could understand (which lawyers seem to love!) and we also added plain English explanatory statements. A year later, we eventually arrived at a template Licence Agreement document which provides the basis and level playing field from which a designer/manufacturer can negotiate specific clauses upon which both parties can work. A good legal agreement of any type should be designed to broker good relations between both parties and provide sufficient legal ballast should it fail. Most importantly, it sets out how two parties can work together to each other’s advantage. That is all we are trying to do. No-one wants to have to rely on the “small print” but it needs to be sound if it has to be relied upon. All agreement users also need to take responsibility to ensure that what they wish to achieve commercially is accurately represented in the agreements which bear their name together with supporting legal clauses which will protect them if things go wrong. 

ACID responds and reacts to user-feedback of its agreements in practice and we continually improve what we have on offer wherever we can, that is the whole point of an organisation such as ours. The majority of Britain’s formidable design army are mostly small businesses; they cannot afford hefty legal fees. So if there is something that we offer that doesn’t provide all the answers, provide us with something that does it better! 

Erring on the totally positive side of Barbara Cookson’s comments, if she would like to provide a draft free agreement which she feels would adequately cover what she feels is a shortfall, we would be absolutely delighted to receive it for legal, peer and user-review. Self-help tools are only good if they work for everyone. As a not-for-profit organisation we welcome all formative feedback wholeheartedly".

Thanks, Dids, for your response. But, readers, why have we not heard from you?