The HTML code created by bozo #1 was generated by DreamWeaver, right? So this is not a creative work. There is nothing unique about it; nothing to copyright.
So if I use Photoshop to create some masterpiece (and maybe even Eyecandy and Kai's Power Tools for nifty effects), then it isn't a creative work? Or are you saying that HTML created using any program (even Notepad) is neither created nor unique?
Unless it was some sort of auto-generated template (like a lot of free webhosts provide), I can't see how the specific tool used matters in any way.
When, oh when, will people stop asking for legal advice on Slashdot?
probably a few days before ACs begin posting insightful, interesting first posts...
Not only are the odds in favor of getting dozens of not-necessarily-correct opinions from non-lawyers very high, but I consider it extremely unlikely that any lawyer who does read this is going to give out free advice.
So what?
I doubt most people asking for "legal advice" are really looking for something that will hold up in court. Perhaps the original question should have been "Should HTML be copyrightable?" That's much more interesting, falls within the realm of everyone here, and still serves the original purpose of this topic - to get the kind of feedback, moral support, and entertaining bitching that real lawyers (who are already involved) don't provide.
I personally see 3 elements to the issue:
(1) the actual info being marked-up (2) the design (layout, javascript, DB-integration, etc) (3) html tags
(1) the info
Just as copyrighteous as a book, magazine article, or painting. IANAL, IANAMoron either, and that clearly belongs to the site's owner. So it isn't the issue. BTW, I don't want to get into a discussion about whether copyright itself is valid or obsolete.
(2) the design
I think this is the sticky point. For something complicated like, say, the architect's plans for the Empire State Building or the bloated code that is my operating system (I'll give you one guess...), it seems like that should be copyrightable. For something simple like a plain drinking glass, it definitely looks like it shouldn't be.
Where's the line? I saw some pretty innovative stuff on a site featuring 5 KB websites - even a 5040 or so byte e-commerce site. That's impressive, and I feel like it should get copyright protection. Then I look at the crappy website my friend made (great guy, no html skills) and think "no way!" Shouldn't there be some hard and fast rule? Ideas?
(3) html tags
Obviously not, but it would be fun to see someone (w3c?) go around suing everyone using table tags...:-)
Anyway, the incompetent prior developer is probably making a claim on #2. Should that be valid or invalid? Or somewhere in between?
(secretly hoping not valid, having ganked a whole lot of html code...hmmm, maybe Slashdot has something clever I can steal;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The HTML code created by bozo #1 was generated by DreamWeaver, right? So this is not a creative work. There is nothing unique about it; nothing to copyright.
So if I use Photoshop to create some masterpiece (and maybe even Eyecandy and Kai's Power Tools for nifty effects), then it isn't a creative work? Or are you saying that HTML created using any program (even Notepad) is neither created nor unique?
Unless it was some sort of auto-generated template (like a lot of free webhosts provide), I can't see how the specific tool used matters in any way.
When, oh when, will people stop asking for legal advice on Slashdot?
probably a few days before ACs begin posting insightful, interesting first posts...
Not only are the odds in favor of getting dozens of not-necessarily-correct opinions from non-lawyers very high, but I consider it extremely unlikely that any lawyer who does read this is going to give out free advice.
So what?
I doubt most people asking for "legal advice" are really looking for something that will hold up in court. Perhaps the original question should have been "Should HTML be copyrightable?" That's much more interesting, falls within the realm of everyone here, and still serves the original purpose of this topic - to get the kind of feedback, moral support, and entertaining bitching that real lawyers (who are already involved) don't provide.
I personally see 3 elements to the issue:
(1) the actual info being marked-up
(2) the design (layout, javascript, DB-integration, etc)
(3) html tags
(1) the info
Just as copyrighteous as a book, magazine article, or painting. IANAL, IANAMoron either, and that clearly belongs to the site's owner. So it isn't the issue. BTW, I don't want to get into a discussion about whether copyright itself is valid or obsolete.
(2) the design
I think this is the sticky point. For something complicated like, say, the architect's plans for the Empire State Building or the bloated code that is my operating system (I'll give you one guess...), it seems like that should be copyrightable. For something simple like a plain drinking glass, it definitely looks like it shouldn't be.
Where's the line? I saw some pretty innovative stuff on a site featuring 5 KB websites - even a 5040 or so byte e-commerce site. That's impressive, and I feel like it should get copyright protection. Then I look at the crappy website my friend made (great guy, no html skills) and think "no way!" Shouldn't there be some hard and fast rule? Ideas?
(3) html tags
Obviously not, but it would be fun to see someone (w3c?) go around suing everyone using table tags... :-)
Anyway, the incompetent prior developer is probably making a claim on #2. Should that be valid or invalid? Or somewhere in between?
(secretly hoping not valid, having ganked a whole lot of html code...hmmm, maybe Slashdot has something clever I can steal ;-)