The principal of the firm has passed around a confidentiality agreement for all employees to sign by the weeks end, and after reading through the eight page document I have questions that I would like to get some input on. At the core of the document I have no objections as it is pure ethical standards in regard to keeping client, project, and financial information concealed that can otherwise be used against the firm from competing organizations. The real dilemma seems to be the nature at which the firm would like to restrict employees after employment. Essentially we are asked to agree that we will not represent any information, documentation, or media from a project/s that we have worked on in any way. One instance would be using a project photograph (unprofessional) in a portfolio to illustrate previous work done. I have only worked at two firms, and the first firm that I worked for had no problem with employees using certain materials in a portfolio after employment. Is this kind of confidentiality agreement common? What does this mean for representing work in a portfolio if I or anyone should leave this firm?
does the agreement say you can "never use any materials under any circumstances", or you can't "use the materials without the firm's explicit prior approval" ?
the profession is rife with examples of people leaving a firm and claiming totally unwarranted responsibily for projects they barely touched. we had a former employee put images in his portfolio for projects completed before he even joined the firm.
while I think agreements of the sort you mention are relatively rare, they probably are the only practical way any firm can exercise any sort of restraint on how former employees represent their experience and contribution while at the firm.
in other words, while you are at the firm, the revealing of any confidential information could lead to your being fired. you have a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the work you are undertaking.
the same would hold true of leaving an office and being in command of confidential information.
however, if you leave the firm, and then use images, aspects of work produced during your tenure there and for which you were involved, what are they going to do - fire you??
this is just one more layer of stupid processes trying to control and guarantee ethics. it never works.
if you move to another office claim responsibility for aspect of previous work that you in fact did not undertake, then that new firm would be well within their rights to terminate your employment if they feel you are not displaying this implied ability, or if you have lied about your experience and ability.
if however, you did work in a previous office and did have the responsibility for the level and quality of work produced, then you are entitled to receive recognition and reference to that work. the original office can't withhold your role in the work.
ridiculousness - again (as i said about something else earlier this week) i suspect the involvement of lawyers: possibly a recession make-work project for them.
each of us has to learn what needs to be confidential and what doesn't and a firm restricting our discretion doesn't help us learn these things.
dlb makes some good points. as long as you're employed there, go along with it. once you're out, you have no reason not to show projects on which you worked. you're allowed to keep copies of drawings in most cases (exception: some gov't projects).
the only issue i see may be if you try to use photos for which the firm paid a photographer. the photographer has controlling rights a lot of the time, as does the firm. i always just take my own pix. ironically, pix i took for myself are now used on the website of a firm in which i no longer work!
I suspect photographs need to have a copyright for a photographer to claim exclusive use to have real legal standing. Also, personal incidental use (in your portfolio as reference to illustrate past project experience) is not enforceable copyright infringement, just don't represent it as your personal photographic work.
Make sure you fully understand "confidentiality agreement" and its nuances. Principal should have had an office-wide meeting to explain agreement with attorney present to answer employees' questions. Having read and negotiated many legal documents; I suggest having an attorney-friend read document with you before you hand it signed back to principal. Ambiguous contract language serves purpose of having several different interpretations, the initial benign reading and the later punitive enforcement. Do you know why firm suddenly require a confidentiality agreement? What is firm's underlying need to get employees signed-up this week?
Does agreement stipulate firm's rights to enforce provisions, and seek what monetary damages from violating employee or ex-employee? What's your true exposure to punitive action by firm? Possible purposes of agreement could be to ensure ex-employees don't talk about office, its projects and clients, poach clients, or grossly misrepresent work, etc. Does agreement note that ex-employees are prohibited from contacting clients or soliciting new work from those clients? Does agreement forbid employees from using project information for their work-portfolios?
I agree with a firm's concern that employees not exagerate or lie about their role on projects. I've seen job applicants who boldly misrepresent work-experience and project responsibilities, though it's fairly easy to spot this if you discuss projects in detail at interviews. Here I'm concerned that firm is trying to exclude relevant project information from their employees' portfolios, perhaps in anticipation of a big lay-off.
"Anti-compete" contracts aren't enforceable unless employee is adequately compensated for future employment restrictions. If a low-level or mid-level employee, that provision would be nonsense. Though firm may threaten ex-employee with litigation, it would be an empty threat. "Sign or be fired" anti-compete employment-restrictions are often viewed in court as coerced if placed upon non-executive position employees. Feds and courts protect "right to work" of those non-exec ex-employees.
Be careful; you probably must sign agreement to remain in good standing at firm. But sign it well-informed.
Historically, other industries have widespread and long standing policies that are as tough, or tougher, than the situation described above by lesro.
I understand, and appreciate, the anxiety and resentment such actions by firms can cause. But, it seems to me that firms increasingly are being motivated to protect their intellectual property because of the widespread abuses that have occured over the years by current and former employees. Like the comments made above by file, I too have seen egregious examples of such behavior by people who have left firms where I have worked.
These concerns about intellectual property are especially powerful in an economy like this, when staff reductions inherently will spawn many new firms. Existing firms would be reckless, if not negligent, to not take reasonable precautions to protect their own interests and competitive position. And yes, those protections can be implemented in a manner consistent with the related provisions in the AIA Code of Ethics.
without seeing the actual agreement it's hard to say, but if you all are engaged in some really sensitive projects or even in projects which have contractural obligations regarding which information can be released, the firm could have decided to just issue a blanket 'cya' to make sure people don't accidentally reveal something they shouldn't, even if with the best of intentions.
but that's just a guess.
keeping information internal, as you refer to initially, is huge right now. i wouldn't want any fired employees, especially anyone helping out with marketing, to run off with our project leads right now. heck, i'd probably sue someone if they did that. that aspect is unbelievably serious. it does sound like everyone there would benefit from a sit down with the principals to discuss why this is being introduced right now...
never hurts to have someone review it, but as noted, even though these are not common in our line of work, they are very common elsewhere and some i've seen are supremely restrictive.
A lot of fear and anxiety can be avoided if the firm management that makes people sign these agreements also implements a clear procedure to distribute project images and information to eligible employees at the conclusion of each project. In other words, give people something for their portfolios as part of close-out for each job, rather than wait until they leave the company. This tends to alleviate the fear that, upon their departure, people will be denied any images or copies of drawings because of signing the confidentiality agreement.
Thanks everyone for your comments, and links to similar posts. I have some clarity on what the situation in our office has been recently. It turns out that an ex-employee has not only taken complete electronic drawing files, but pricing, client information, and fee structure to another firm in which to steal a project from under the feet of our firm. This ex-employee has been out of the firm for about six months, and I am not sure why it has taken as long as it has to generate a confidentiality agreement to the extent as I have on my desk, but this would qualify for good reason for such an agreement. I am quite amazed at the level people will go to interpret roles in a project, deliberately using copyright protected photography as their own, and in the instance of file's comment using documentation from a firm while not a part of that firm. Anyway, I guess what I can take away from this post is that if you are honest with yourself, to prospective clients/firms/jobs, and with ex-employers no harm done.
narmer, i like the stated protocal on allowing documentation to be gathered at a projects end to allow both the firm, and an employee the opportunity to establish a credible release of project information.
i would feel much more comfortable sitting down as an office, and reviewing this document rather than being blind sided by paperwork and expected to sign or be released.
Confidentiality Agreement in Architecture Firms
The principal of the firm has passed around a confidentiality agreement for all employees to sign by the weeks end, and after reading through the eight page document I have questions that I would like to get some input on. At the core of the document I have no objections as it is pure ethical standards in regard to keeping client, project, and financial information concealed that can otherwise be used against the firm from competing organizations. The real dilemma seems to be the nature at which the firm would like to restrict employees after employment. Essentially we are asked to agree that we will not represent any information, documentation, or media from a project/s that we have worked on in any way. One instance would be using a project photograph (unprofessional) in a portfolio to illustrate previous work done. I have only worked at two firms, and the first firm that I worked for had no problem with employees using certain materials in a portfolio after employment. Is this kind of confidentiality agreement common? What does this mean for representing work in a portfolio if I or anyone should leave this firm?
This discussion might help you:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=86301_0_42_0_C
does the agreement say you can "never use any materials under any circumstances", or you can't "use the materials without the firm's explicit prior approval" ?
the profession is rife with examples of people leaving a firm and claiming totally unwarranted responsibily for projects they barely touched. we had a former employee put images in his portfolio for projects completed before he even joined the firm.
while I think agreements of the sort you mention are relatively rare, they probably are the only practical way any firm can exercise any sort of restraint on how former employees represent their experience and contribution while at the firm.
it seems to me that this in fact means nothing.
in other words, while you are at the firm, the revealing of any confidential information could lead to your being fired. you have a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the work you are undertaking.
the same would hold true of leaving an office and being in command of confidential information.
however, if you leave the firm, and then use images, aspects of work produced during your tenure there and for which you were involved, what are they going to do - fire you??
this is just one more layer of stupid processes trying to control and guarantee ethics. it never works.
if you move to another office claim responsibility for aspect of previous work that you in fact did not undertake, then that new firm would be well within their rights to terminate your employment if they feel you are not displaying this implied ability, or if you have lied about your experience and ability.
if however, you did work in a previous office and did have the responsibility for the level and quality of work produced, then you are entitled to receive recognition and reference to that work. the original office can't withhold your role in the work.
ridiculousness - again (as i said about something else earlier this week) i suspect the involvement of lawyers: possibly a recession make-work project for them.
each of us has to learn what needs to be confidential and what doesn't and a firm restricting our discretion doesn't help us learn these things.
dlb makes some good points. as long as you're employed there, go along with it. once you're out, you have no reason not to show projects on which you worked. you're allowed to keep copies of drawings in most cases (exception: some gov't projects).
the only issue i see may be if you try to use photos for which the firm paid a photographer. the photographer has controlling rights a lot of the time, as does the firm. i always just take my own pix. ironically, pix i took for myself are now used on the website of a firm in which i no longer work!
I suspect photographs need to have a copyright for a photographer to claim exclusive use to have real legal standing. Also, personal incidental use (in your portfolio as reference to illustrate past project experience) is not enforceable copyright infringement, just don't represent it as your personal photographic work.
Make sure you fully understand "confidentiality agreement" and its nuances. Principal should have had an office-wide meeting to explain agreement with attorney present to answer employees' questions. Having read and negotiated many legal documents; I suggest having an attorney-friend read document with you before you hand it signed back to principal. Ambiguous contract language serves purpose of having several different interpretations, the initial benign reading and the later punitive enforcement. Do you know why firm suddenly require a confidentiality agreement? What is firm's underlying need to get employees signed-up this week?
Does agreement stipulate firm's rights to enforce provisions, and seek what monetary damages from violating employee or ex-employee? What's your true exposure to punitive action by firm? Possible purposes of agreement could be to ensure ex-employees don't talk about office, its projects and clients, poach clients, or grossly misrepresent work, etc. Does agreement note that ex-employees are prohibited from contacting clients or soliciting new work from those clients? Does agreement forbid employees from using project information for their work-portfolios?
I agree with a firm's concern that employees not exagerate or lie about their role on projects. I've seen job applicants who boldly misrepresent work-experience and project responsibilities, though it's fairly easy to spot this if you discuss projects in detail at interviews. Here I'm concerned that firm is trying to exclude relevant project information from their employees' portfolios, perhaps in anticipation of a big lay-off.
"Anti-compete" contracts aren't enforceable unless employee is adequately compensated for future employment restrictions. If a low-level or mid-level employee, that provision would be nonsense. Though firm may threaten ex-employee with litigation, it would be an empty threat. "Sign or be fired" anti-compete employment-restrictions are often viewed in court as coerced if placed upon non-executive position employees. Feds and courts protect "right to work" of those non-exec ex-employees.
Be careful; you probably must sign agreement to remain in good standing at firm. But sign it well-informed.
Historically, other industries have widespread and long standing policies that are as tough, or tougher, than the situation described above by lesro.
I understand, and appreciate, the anxiety and resentment such actions by firms can cause. But, it seems to me that firms increasingly are being motivated to protect their intellectual property because of the widespread abuses that have occured over the years by current and former employees. Like the comments made above by file, I too have seen egregious examples of such behavior by people who have left firms where I have worked.
These concerns about intellectual property are especially powerful in an economy like this, when staff reductions inherently will spawn many new firms. Existing firms would be reckless, if not negligent, to not take reasonable precautions to protect their own interests and competitive position. And yes, those protections can be implemented in a manner consistent with the related provisions in the AIA Code of Ethics.
without seeing the actual agreement it's hard to say, but if you all are engaged in some really sensitive projects or even in projects which have contractural obligations regarding which information can be released, the firm could have decided to just issue a blanket 'cya' to make sure people don't accidentally reveal something they shouldn't, even if with the best of intentions.
but that's just a guess.
keeping information internal, as you refer to initially, is huge right now. i wouldn't want any fired employees, especially anyone helping out with marketing, to run off with our project leads right now. heck, i'd probably sue someone if they did that. that aspect is unbelievably serious. it does sound like everyone there would benefit from a sit down with the principals to discuss why this is being introduced right now...
never hurts to have someone review it, but as noted, even though these are not common in our line of work, they are very common elsewhere and some i've seen are supremely restrictive.
A lot of fear and anxiety can be avoided if the firm management that makes people sign these agreements also implements a clear procedure to distribute project images and information to eligible employees at the conclusion of each project. In other words, give people something for their portfolios as part of close-out for each job, rather than wait until they leave the company. This tends to alleviate the fear that, upon their departure, people will be denied any images or copies of drawings because of signing the confidentiality agreement.
Thanks everyone for your comments, and links to similar posts. I have some clarity on what the situation in our office has been recently. It turns out that an ex-employee has not only taken complete electronic drawing files, but pricing, client information, and fee structure to another firm in which to steal a project from under the feet of our firm. This ex-employee has been out of the firm for about six months, and I am not sure why it has taken as long as it has to generate a confidentiality agreement to the extent as I have on my desk, but this would qualify for good reason for such an agreement. I am quite amazed at the level people will go to interpret roles in a project, deliberately using copyright protected photography as their own, and in the instance of file's comment using documentation from a firm while not a part of that firm. Anyway, I guess what I can take away from this post is that if you are honest with yourself, to prospective clients/firms/jobs, and with ex-employers no harm done.
narmer, i like the stated protocal on allowing documentation to be gathered at a projects end to allow both the firm, and an employee the opportunity to establish a credible release of project information.
i would feel much more comfortable sitting down as an office, and reviewing this document rather than being blind sided by paperwork and expected to sign or be released.
lesro / narmer -- remembers seeing this on AIA.org a few years back -- it seems germane to some of the issues you mention above:
Personal Use of Documents: A Sample Firm Policy
Considering that this was not an original condition of your employment, it's at least open to negotiation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.