2020 TOS Updates

[Amanda L]

---

Maria T wrote:

---

Yury M wrote:

It would be nice if you do english-russian translation soon.

---

Yes, and to some other language. Spanish, for example

---

They should translate it to English too.

[Maria T]

---

Amanda L wrote:

---

Maria T wrote:

---

Yury M wrote:

It would be nice if you do english-russian translation soon.

---

Yes, and to some other language. Spanish, for example

---

They should translate it to English too.

---

+ 1000 

[Preston H]

I think a valid case could be made that Upwork wants people to use the hourly contract model, and that fixed-price contracts are something that Upwork allows but doesn't prefer.

The difference in the protections and security for freelancers when it comes to hourly versus fixed-price is like night and day. For understandable reasons.

I totally get it that there are freelancers and clients alike who prefer fixed-price contracts. But they are more complicated, and they are riskier.

[Tyler G]

The TOS now says:

  6.5 LICENSE TO BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY

Upon Freelancer’s receipt of full payment from Client for delivery of Work Product, Freelancer hereby automatically grants to Client an exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid and royalty-free...

Shouldn't that say "non-exclusive" like the previous terms did? It is essentially saying that all rights to background technology is forfeited to the client. Where it should say that the client can use it with the Work Product, but the freelancer maintains their rights to the background technology.

[Jennifer R]

---

Tyler G wrote:

The TOS now says:

  6.5 LICENSE TO BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY

Upon Freelancer’s receipt of full payment from Client for delivery of Work Product, Freelancer hereby automatically grants to Client an exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid and royalty-free...

Shouldn't that say "non-exclusive" like the previous terms did? It is essentially saying that all rights to background technology is forfeited to the client. Where it should say that the client can use it with the Work Product, but the freelancer maintains their rights to the background technology.

---

No, the client pays so he owns it.

[Tyler G]

The client pays for the IP created during the contract. The client DOES NOT pay for the background technology. So why does the client own it? Also, it doesn't say the client owns it. It says the client has an exclusive license. I believe this wording is contrary to the previous version of these terms. Anyone have a copy of those?

[Valeria K]

Thanks for your question, Tyler. This change has been made intentionally and based on feedback we've received from users. That said, these terms are voluntary and the freelancers and clients are free to agree to different terms if these do not work for their needs. We appreciate your feedback about this and will certainly share it with the team.

[Tyler G]

You may as well completely remove the section on background technology. Because that paragraph makes it completely unworkable in almost every situation. Do you have a copy of the previous terms somewhere?

[Douglas Michael M]

---

Tyler G wrote:

You may as well completely remove the section on background technology. Because that paragraph makes it completely unworkable in almost every situation. Do you have a copy of the previous terms somewhere?

---

Tyler, you can have your own default contract with terms to your liking. Upwork's default contract is called "optional" for that reason. But it's opt-out rather than opt-in. The way to opt out is to have the client agree to your own terms; those terms will then supersede the corresponding terms in the Upwork contract. If the problem is as you originally stated it, you could change exclusive to non-exclusive for your own contract.

For background, though this is not my area, there have been many disputes between contractors and clients over the nature of deliverables for technical work. As in the case of its interpretation of copyright, Upwork has published terms that overwhelmingly favor the client. These two default contract provisions are now aligned, even if arguably not comparable.

Best,

Michael