Copyrights on Web Interfaces
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:42 AM
from the its-happened-before dept.
from the its-happened-before dept.
wildag writes "I've recently come into a battle with a guy who owns
this site.
You might notice the 'similarities' between his web site and
Linux.com.
I'm going to doubt that Linux.com bought the interface from him. The acutal battle comes from a statment that is on his message board (posted by the admin - Leo). He says 'The layout of any website is "public domain" which is freely available to the public' (that is avaliable here: http://hobbes.resne t.tamu.edu/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25). What do you guys think? (BTW, Linux.com has been notified and he didn't ask permission)." There are countless websites that are direct ripoffs of others, but few as blatant as this one. My policy with Slashdot has always pretty much been take what you want, but give us credit for what ya lift. I've seen this done many times to many sites and it always bums me out: making a well designed website is hard work, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... but isn't saying thanks and crediting your source part of it too? (For those who don't know, Slashdot is owned by VA Linux now, which also owns Linux.com. This doesn't really have anything to do with this story, but I figured I'd mention it). I post this not to point fingers or cause a fight, but to open a discussion about this. Just because you can take something, should you? When are you stealing? Is is hypocritical to demand open source, but not be willing to share your design? And should "Sharing" mean "You can take it, and claim it as your own, and not give the original creator any credit?" Its an issue that spans genres: Web Pages? Source Code? Samples in Music? Fair Use?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Copywrites on Web Interfaces
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 390 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Heh (Score:3)
Seriously, how can you copyright a website layout? Anyone ever notice all gaming related websites(like UGO) look EXACTLY the same, with the trendy left-side navigation in a really small font?
Just... (Score:4)
--
Standards (Score:4)
Now that doesn't mean I totally agree with this guy. Until it becomes common for sites to follow certain layout standards, the very least he could (and probably should) do is give credit to where he got his source. Creating a similar layout and just copying the source and changing a few words are two completely different things. I didn't think to look, but I wouldn't be suprised if you checked out the page source and saw comments from the original linux.com site.
He has the themes.org logo even. (Score:3)
OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON! (Score:5)
The View Source button in every web browser is a tool for stealing! It should be banned IMMEDIATELY! Just think -- ANYONE can go to your PRIVATE homepage and download the source code! You worked DAYS on that font size -4 text with the bright yellow background! That javascript fade background code took MINUTES of removing the comments!
I have yet to see a single web page design WORTH stealing, geez.
I don't think the guy should be worried (Score:3)
At any rate, think of it as "Open Souce": both web sites might look the same, but don't share the same content. A person looking for Linux informationis not going to be confused by "MyHobbes.com". And even if it was a Linux site, the readers would flock to the best site, regardless of design. Much like Open Source Software, projects can compete, but still share. Just think of the Invisible Hand of web site visitors.
-- Floyd
Stealing??? (Score:5)
I look at web design this way. It is sort of like a book or magazine. All books, magazines, newspapers, etc... have the same basic look and feel. Lets examine a newspaper. There are columns of text and graphics placed on a page. All newspapers follow this format. Websites are the same way, text and graphics are layed out on a page. This could be viewed as the design.
I personally have no problems with anyone copying my design, layout, whatever you want to call it. Just like a newspaper they can have the same general layout.
The place where the line is drawn is when they start copying content without permission, including graphics.
After taking a look at the two sites in question it is obvious that hobbes copied the news graphic from linux.com. Did he gain permission for this? If not then he is violating copyright. If he has permission to use this grpaic and all his content is original, I dont see a problem.
pretty blatant ripoff (Score:3)
I think it's one thing to borrow the layout of a website and modify formatting and colouring to suite your needs, but IMHO, this is pretty much the same as plagarizing.
imabug
Come on, why complain.. (Score:4)
Something to think about, isn't it?
Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu? (Score:5)
Specifical, read this FAQ [tamu.edu]:
The site seems to potentially violate both of those.
Re:Heh (Score:3)
Seriously, how can you copyright a website layout? Anyone ever notice all gaming related websites(like UGO) look EXACTLY the same, with the trendy left-side navigation in a really small font?
Copyrighting a general concept like left-side navigation is silly. However, copying the entire site down to the images/colors and just changing the name (like from Slashdot to FishFriends News) is definitely wrong. Even worse is stealing the HTML, then changing the images to "SRC=http://slashdot.org/_img_path_name", since /. then pays for your site in the bandwidth dept.
So the copyrightability should depend on the specificness of things. What would computing look like if Bell Labs had copyrighted the idea of having an OS kernel?
--
LoonXTall
Intellectual property, or not? (Score:4)
It is important to Microsoft to make money, and they have written restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.
It is important for academics to gain prestige and recognition for themselves and their organizations, and they write restrictive licenses (use only with attributions) to accomplish that end.
It is important for free software advocates to make all software completely free and always open, and they write restrictive licenses (the GPL) to accomplish those ends.
It is important to me to show people God's love in practical ways, and I wrote my restrictive license (LGPL with a further explanation of intent) for my open source published software to accomplish that end.
It is important for musicians to control their message and generate income, and they write restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.
So, do we honor the original authors wishes, or is intellectual property immoral... you can't have it both ways! It is either totally free (not only as in beer and speech, but even further as in total lawless anarchy), or it is "owned" by the original author and you must respect their "license" that meets their goals and desires if you wish to use their work.
Bill Kilgallon
Theft? (Score:3)
To be honest, I've done this, more times than once. I've given credit to the appropriate people, either via email, or by posting it directly on the site. What it comes down to is that some people just aren't gifted creatively, and will just steal your idea (and I'm one of them). Do I feel bad about it? No. I'd bet the person running the offending site has no problems with it either.
The point is this: give credit, it's ok. don't give credit, you're an ass.
He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style (Score:5)
No, we don't approve of any bully methods. (Score:3)
Lets face it, there is only so many ways you can lay out a website. you can put nav crap on the left side, right side, or top, or have combinations of two or all three. Theres only so many ways a site can be laid out and if one looks like another then either accept that fact or break out the lawyers and join the ranks of the MPAA and RIAA in bullying to get your way.
The only place you would have might have any leeway is on the images, ask them to have made their own if you feel this bit of 'intelectual property' is so important that it needs to be restricted.
Under the 'Legal Information' the only asserted copyright is over articles and reviews, the rest of the site is described as a 'community site', with no stated restrictions on using/copying the website layout and images itself.
If he broke into your servers and stole your (restricted) source code then perhaps action would be justified, but just taking the 'look and feel' while coding/building his own backend does not.
-- Greg
Image & Linking (Score:3)
I think he could possibly get into trouble if he has images on his web site that area copied and he does not have permission. I think I have heard of that happening before. Are the images free?
Also there was a case of a company sewing another company cause the first company did work on a web site and the second company fied the first and then brought in someone else and the new someone continued the work on the web site, and the first company threatened to sew. I amm not sure where that went.
The question is how does Linux.com feel about this. They are owned by va linux, I believe and are supposed to be advocaters of open source as I understand. If so then they may not care. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Knee-jerk reactions? Leo Lahav isn't a lamer... (Score:3)
I wonder how long it will take for this to get moderated down... :)
Re:He has the themes.org logo even. (Score:3)
- - - - - - - - -
There's another way, people. (Score:5)
Put metaphorically - just because I let you use my pool doesn't mean I want you also sleeping with my wife in my bed.
It is _not_ hypocritical to have an open source/public good for one piece of software but maintain proprietary rights in something else. Just b/c someone has given away _some_ of their intellectual property doesn't mean that they've decided to give it _all_ away. If a hobbyist works on a widget for the next Red Hat distro and it gets burned in, do you also expect said hobbyist to give away all of his copyright material in some other field? Illogical.
Giving away something does not equate to giving away everything.
Unless the new Linux argument is "do away with money" and if so, email me, and I'll tell you where you can send the pre-IPO shares of your company.
---
There are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)
CmdrTaco I am against you on this one... (Score:3)
It's freaking HTML. It's not a big deal, it didn't cost you any money to produce nor is it any skin of your nose if someone else uses it, so what's your problem? It's not like it cost Slashdot thousands of dollars to market, produce and distribute the HTML so what's the big deal?
Before corporations got here, the Web was a place where people shared stuff and information was free, now we see people trying to claim ownership on stuff as intangible as the HTML that a website is written with or for it's look and feel? B.S.
I almost expected to see CmdrTaco claim that people are stealing his intellectual property.
By the way, for all the Open Source guys out there, forcing people to advertise slashdot simply for using it's HTML or look and feel is counter to the spirit of the GPL. After all, Slashdot isn't forced to display powered by Apache or running GNU/Debian Linux or served by MySQL. So why should people be required to display a logo based on the most intangible and flimsiest part of the site, it's HTML?
(-1 Troll)
What was lost? (Score:3)
Now, many people will be saying "credit should be given where credit is due." To them I say yes, you're absolutely right, but the ability to use ideas from someone else (notice I didn't say take), no matter how many of them you use, is fundamental to the ability to produce any new ideas. Linux.com didn't arise in a vacuum, it came about because of many similar layouts that came before it. Which came about because of the invention of HTML, and HTTP. Which came about because of the invention of networking . . . etc.
And sure, outright carbon copying is lazy and largely useless to the rest of the community since it provides nothing new, but that's the extent of his crime.
As long as they are not stealing content (Score:3)
I always thought these "look and feel" cases heald about as much water as a sieve patent. Yhey might, but they shouldn't.
Hell, even complaining that another site has the same "look" as yours (yes, even if it is a clone with different content) is about as genuine as an Apple vs. whomever lawsuit. Yes, I *think* Apple won something along those lines, but did you support that decision then?
This is the same thing.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:Come on, why complain.. (Score:3)
No, not really.
If you publish something in an environment where you've got no right to stop people from appropriating it for their own uses, you've got no one to blame but yourself. In other words, no one put a gun to your head and made you publish it, so quit whining.
If you publish something under a license that permits derivative works, don't complain when derivative works actually happen, even when they make more money or earn more attention than your works.
A corollary to the the first two: When the legal framework permits dervative works for the purpose of criticism and parody, don't whine when someone uses those rights to successfully counter your opinions or propoganda.
When you try to claim ownership of something so vague as "look and feel", don't be suprised when people shrug you off as a possesive control freak. There are clearly optimum design patterns for user interfaces, and none of them require such an investment to implement to merit copyright or trademark status. One can own words, one can own images, one can even one an expression of an algorithm, but to claim ownership of a particular nesting of <table> elements is absurd.
Layout not protected, but bitmaps are (Score:3)
Layout, look'n'feel, theme, interfaces, protocols -- these things aren't copyrightable. I thought Microsoft-vs-Apple settled that. (Furthermore, it would be particularly hypocritical for a Linux advocates site or RMS fans to argue the position that interfaces are copyrightable.)
On the other hand, specific expressions (such as the bitmaps) are copyrightable. Theoretically, long strings of HTML that do formatting crap (seperate from the content) might be copyrightable too (but I'm uncertain about the length, and it seems silly to me somehow). If this guy took copyrighted stuff from linux.com, then he should either cease'n'desist, or agree whatever terms linux.com wants (e.g. give credit where it is due). If he doesn't like the terms, he can make his own bitmaps.
---
Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy (Score:3)
Seth
He DOES credit linux.com (Score:3)
Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON! (Score:3)
I've seen web pages that use Javascript to catch the right mouse click button and pop up a little window saying "This is copyrighted". So you can't use the View Source context menu on the frame. And the browser menu won't help, because the site is using frames and all of the interesting content is in the frame, not the container document which just has a frameset.
Of course you can get around all that if you try... but just wait until somebody gets sued under the DMCA for this.
(offtopic: but does anyone know how to turn off Javascript in Internet Explorer 5.0? Did you know that if you search for Javascript in IE5.0 help you get no matches!?)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
IAAWD (Score:3)
Speaking as a web designer, I say absolutely NOT. At least have the decency to change the color scheme or something. Some may call it imitation/flattery, I call it disrespectful laziness. If you don't have the talent to create your own 'look and feel' then hire someone who does. Sheesh, if my clients could just steal other people's entire sites for their own then I'd soon be out of a job... then again, most clients would still need help just doing that. Ugh.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Not As Bad As Stealing Content! (Score:3)
I run a website called Omphalos - its pretty small, its taken a lot of work to develop, and I don't make a dime off of it, so I am not upset at lost revenue or anything, but I have had my site content ripped off completely by some other individual in the past, and despite repeated attempts to get the situation resolved (which I handled badly at the start I admit) and despite chasing the guy across multiple webhosts I have still failed to get my stolen content removed from his site. I even contacted the EFF on this, but they do not deal with issues of copyright.
My website has completely changed since this event, so to illustrate the point I have to point to an older copy of the site that can be compared to the stolen version (which has undergone some changes too for that matter). Keep in mind we are talking content here not appearance. What was specifically taken from my site are the website descriptions and categories that were present in my directory. Here are some example pages:
Now, my site has grown considerably since then, and undergone many changes. In one sense I don't care that this individual has ripped off my pages because my site is progressing and is probably far better known, its also a more useful resource (and I think I can do webpages better than the other guy too). OTOH, I am really pissed off at the offense of having my site content stolen and being unable to do anything about it other than complain. I don't have the cash to take someone to court so that is not a feasible option, and I am tired of chasing this guy from one ISP to another (I have had his site removed from 3 servers so far and it just keeps reappearing elsewhere).
I found out about this because someone who had submitted their site to my website informed me that the same description had appeared on this other website, even though they did not submit their site description to that other site. Also, one of my websites ("Atho's Pagan Files Collection", now a part of Omphalos itself) is actually listed in the Bookstore's directory and *I* sure as hell didn't submit it there.
When I first discovered this I posted a complaint on my website accusing the other site of ripping me off, then contacted the webmaster. I should have done it the other way around, cause I got his back up and it became impossible to reason with him on this issue. My mistake freely admitted here. When I asked him about the similiarities between our site content, he had two comments:
So he refuses to listen to me, and the only recourse I have is to keep chasing him from server to server or sue him in court. I don't have the time or cash for either.
BTW if the subject matter of my site is of interest to you, please use the current version: http://www.omphalos.net [omphalos.net]
Any suggestions?
Re:Heh (Score:3)
That is the statement of someone who hasn't had to do something long and in depth in a language. I hear people make that comment about Perl all the time too. "Well stealing CGIs isn't like stealing C...they're short and easy to read anyway".
So in my opinion, code (be in HTML, JavaScript, Visual Basic, etc.) is subject to a license. If you use the GNU, then people have the right to steal your code. If they use a more restrictive license, they should be required to leave your code alone. It's only a matter of time before people put the same restrictions on HTML/JavaScript in my opinion.
DMCA for your website, available today! (Score:3)