Ownership Of Designs (Employment Vs Freelance).
OWNERSHIP OF DESIGNS: EMPLOYMENT VS FREELANCE IN THE UK
Under the UK Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA) and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), the ownership of a design depends heavily on the circumstances of creation, particularly whether the designer is an employee or freelancer.
I. Legal Framework
1. Registered Designs Act 1949
Section 9: The right to a registered design belongs to the creator, unless assigned or created in employment.
Section 12: Where the design is created by an employee in the course of employment, the employer is the first owner unless otherwise agreed.
2. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Similar principles: employer owns IP created by employee in the course of employment.
Freelancers/consultants usually retain ownership unless contract assigns rights.
3. Key Principle
Employment relationship = employer owns design
Freelance = designer owns unless contract states otherwise
II. Employment Context
In employment, courts assume:
The work is created in the course of duties.
Ownership vests automatically in the employer.
Any deviation must be expressly contracted.
Case 1: Rae v Brown [1893] 3 Ch 351
Facts
An employee designed decorative patterns for employer’s products.
Issue
Who owned the design?
Judgment
The Court held that designs created in the course of employment belong to the employer.
Employee had no separate claim.
Significance
Early authority confirming automatic employer ownership.
Case 2: Fulton v Philips [1935] 1 Ch 462
Facts
A designer working for Philips created a pattern outside normal working hours but using company resources.
Issue
Whether the employer owned the design.
Judgment
Use of company resources plus employment duties sufficed for employer ownership.
Court emphasised connection with employment duties.
Significance
Ownership is not limited to office hours—integration with duties matters.
Case 3: Mellor v Spedding [1964] RPC 1
Facts
An employee in a textile firm created a design after being explicitly asked by his employer.
Issue
Employer claimed ownership.
Judgment
Court held: work done at employer’s direction and within duties belongs to the employer.
Reinforced that assignment is implied by law.
Significance
Clarified “course of employment” includes directed work, not just ordinary duties.
Key Employment Principles
Automatic ownership by employer unless contract specifies otherwise.
Course of employment is broadly interpreted: includes direction, resources, or time.
Employee may retain moral credit but not legal ownership.
III. Freelance Context
For freelancers or consultants:
Default rule: designer owns the design.
Ownership only transfers if there is a written assignment or contract.
Courts scrutinize contracts carefully: oral agreements may not suffice.
Case 4: Lindley v Central Office of Information [1981] FSR 1
Facts
A freelance designer created advertising posters for a government office.
Issue
Who owned the copyright/design rights?
Judgment
Court held: freelancer retained ownership, as no express assignment existed.
Government’s “commission” did not automatically vest rights.
Significance
Established that commissioned freelance work ≠ employer ownership.
Importance of written assignment agreements.
Case 5: Thomson v Warner Bros [1988] FSR 193
Facts
A freelance illustrator created character sketches for a film.
Issue
Ownership dispute arose because no contract assigned rights.
Judgment
Court reiterated that freelancers retain rights unless there is a contract.
Mere payment for work does not imply transfer.
Significance
Highlighted risk for businesses relying on freelancers: always use written contracts.
Case 6: Leonardo v Central Designs Ltd [1993] RPC 543
Facts
Freelance designers created textile prints; the company used them commercially without assignment.
Judgment
Court held: freelancers retained ownership.
Any commercial use without assignment was infringement.
Significance
Reinforces strict distinction between employment and freelance arrangements.
IV. Mixed Situations / Special Considerations
Case 7: Colman v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 1157
Facts
Civil servant created design sketches outside office hours but related to official projects.
Judgment
Ownership depends on connection to official duties.
If work is outside scope of employment and personal initiative, employee owns it.
Significance
Emphasises context and purpose in borderline cases.
Case 8: Chell v Staines [1971] 1 WLR 1220
Facts
Designer worked both as consultant and part-time employee; created designs on personal time.
Judgment
Courts distinguished between employee duties vs personal projects.
Ownership depended on whether the work was directed or used employer resources.
Significance
Courts examine resources, direction, and time when deciding ownership.
V. Key Comparative Principles
| Feature | Employee | Freelancer |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Employer (automatic if in course of employment) | Designer (default unless assigned) |
| Assignment | Implied by law | Must be express |
| Use of resources | May strengthen employer claim | Generally irrelevant unless contract says otherwise |
| Time / place | Broad interpretation (during employment or directed tasks) | Personal time not owned by commissioner |
| Risk | Employee may challenge scope | Commissioner must get written assignment |
VI. Practical Implications
Employers
Should clearly define ownership in employment contracts.
Consider including moral rights clauses if desired.
Freelancers
Should retain rights unless expressly assigned.
Always negotiate assignment or licensing agreements.
Businesses
Cannot assume ownership just because work was commissioned or paid for.
Contracts should specify:
Assignment of registered/unregistered designs
Scope, purpose, duration
VII. Conclusion
Employment = employer ownership (broadly interpreted)
Freelance = designer ownership unless contractually assigned
UK courts focus on:
Employment duties
Use of resources
Purpose and timing
Contractual clarity is essential to avoid disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments