| |
|
You've run into a few problems. TBH, they looked a lot like they were coming.
Supplying CMS with site is a useful practice, but also technically harder - and bear in mind what when the CMS doesn't do what it says it'll do, or they can't make it work, clients will go back to dicking around with your code and breaking things. Giving people flat files, though, and just saying "fill this out" is not good practice; even if you've done every page they want, this is the internet, for fuck's sake: sites grow, new pages always need producing, and you still seem to be putting that in the hands of the client.
Secondly: what did the contract you signed with the client say?
You did sign a contract, right?
Because, to be honest, you can't put in the contract "you can't change my stuff". They wouldn't sign it if you did. They're buying not just your time, but your output, and again, this is the internet, design-source is never closed. They've bought your work and they're free to do with it what they like.
Is your name on the finished site anywhere? If so, you might have a reason to be involved (or a potential clause to stick in your contract). You could argue that you designed the site as was, and the modifications they have made have degraded it to such an extent that you no longer wish your name to be associated with it/displayed on the footer/colophon/whatever.
But what you can't do is claim ownership. They paid for the work, they bought it from you fair and square. You gave up ownership and copyright when you sold your time and services.
So it wasn't your website ever. It was always your work. But once the work is over, it's their product. They can do with it whatever they like. Move on.
That was all made clear in the contract both parties signed, right?
Also: you use the phrase "twenty years" and explain that you come from a print background. A lesson to be learned: as you rightly surmise, design online is very very different to print design. In print, you can supply an EPS, JPG or flat TIFF. You'd never give away the original PSD.
Online is different, because all there is is the equivalent of the original PSD. This is not a bug; this is a unique and wonderful feature of the web. Unfortunately, it alsoleads to disappointment - and I've read of world-class guys having their work overwritten, altered, or retconned by global megacorps who thought they knew better. The global megacorps were obviously wrong, and there's nothing they could do about it. The designers moved on. They are still at the top of their game. The global megacorps are the ones who lose out.
Learn your lesson from them. |
|
|
