Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights on Web Interfaces
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?
I remember the company I work for's website was copied for some city-related site. He just changed the text and graphics labels around to suit his needs. Needless to say, we were amused since he did real sloppy job of working on it.
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?
give credit where credit is due. If you run slashcode, then you (should) have a Slash logo with a link to slashcode.com, and it would seem appropriate to provide a link to Slashdot, too. In this case, I'd think that a link to linux.com and certainly a nice writeup on the credits page (like "the layout of this site was inspired by linux.com, blah, blah")... besides, this is a kid's site on his linux box in his dorm room (yes, he does host autctions). I think we could cut him some slack here - this really isn't a commercial website, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Likewise, he should give credit for the layout. Really not much of a problem, though.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Well, IMO there's nothing wrong with web pages being laid out the same way. The point of a web page is to convey information, not to come up with a flashy interface. Personally I get pretty fed up with having to study a page just to figure out where they put things, and would love it if more web sites had a consistant format.
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.
-Space for rent
Look at this page. Isn't that the themes.org logo? Wow. Just give credit where credit is due. I don't see any credit given on his site.
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.
Is VA Linux seriously going to sue some college kid in Texas because he stole their site design? Somehow I doubt it. Imagine the great publicity that would generate...
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
-- Floyd
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.
"it could just be the midgets. You've got to be careful with midgets in Spandex." --Jamie Richardson
only had a casual look at the two websites, but it's a pretty blatant ripoff of linux.com. layout, colours, formatting. heck the site even stole a bunch of the graphics used at linux.com.
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
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
...this is the road that RMS and the FSF want to lead us down. No IP rights, and no recourse against people who "share" the output of your hard work. If you complain, you are automatically being selfish, since information wants to be shared, and you are obviously a petty capitalist just interested in the fast buck.
Something to think about, isn't it?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Specifical, read this FAQ:
The site seems to potentially violate both of those.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I posted something similiar to this a month or so back, but it bears repeating.
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
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
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.
Normally I'd say horking some else's style is not illegal, but in this case, he ripped the actual icons off of linux.com. As I write this, the "News" icons on linux.com and that tamu site are the same thing.
If your looking for a warm fuzzy from the slashdot community to 'take action' (i.e. involve lawyers) against this site I doubt you are going to get it.
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
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
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!
Only 'flamers' flame!
I wonder how long it will take for this to get moderated down... :)
The open source movement has turned previously canonical rules of intellectual property on their head. However - they have done so by working within the rules. The open source community depends on the GPL and its brethren, which are _still_ all licensing schemes, they're just open. Working within that framework gives the holders of these rights the ability A: To revoke (unless the GPL totally revokes all rights, you retain them (I haven't read the GPL, I don't know)) and B: to choose what you want to keep and what you want to give away.
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)
Besides the fact that this is glaring hypocrisy. Slashdot bitches about the fact that Metallica don't want people ripping off their music then wants people to acknowledge the fact that they copied some HTML??? What the fuck?
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)
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.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
As long as they are not stealing content, you really do not have a complaint in my eyes.
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
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
He says "Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!" in the "contributions" section.
Best Slashdot Co
the real question is whether that is enough credit to give in return for "yoinking" an entire website design.
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
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
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
Any suggestions?
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Use the DMCA to protect your website. Change every 'e' into and then say you are only licensed to decode it with a web browser if you agree to certain conditions. Bonus points if you write your own browser that enforces your conditions and get Netscape and IE banned as circumvention tools. ;)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!