Forum Moderators: not2easy
For example: Bob creates a site called "Amazany" to sell books. Bob's site is his own creation. He creates his own code, and does NOT copy or paste any HTML code, text, photos, etc., from Amazon or any other site.
Bob's site looks similar to Amazon, as do Bob's page layouts, keywords and how they "flow". Bob does not use any of Amazon's distinquishable trademarks or logos. We can argue that Bob is not very creative, but does this rise to the level of copyright infringment?
Would be interested in the thoughts of others.
Thanks for your reply. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that it is okay if your site appears to be "inspired" by the original design as long as code is different (e.g. you didn't copy and paste the code) and the graphics seem general in nature and are not really unique and different.
Would be interested in the thoughts of others.
My thought is: boy, I love lawyers and lawyer letters and spending time in court, and I have lots of money to spend on lawyers, maybe even as much as Amazon does. This sounds like a great idea!
Design and structure are not copyright protected, but they are taken into account when considering whether there is infringement.
In other words, if there is anything that is protected that is copied, or could be considered a derivative, then the copied structure just makes it worse. If there is nothing copied then the courts *should not* rule against Bob. But Amazon could still take him to court and make his life hell for the next 5 years.
... Or not ...
Look and Feel is something that comes and goes.. Microsoft won against Apple over the desktop interface.. But Apple has followed up and won several cases concerning look and feel..
My suggestion is to make 'some' changes..
Are you saying that it is okay if your site appears to be "inspired" by the original design as long as code is different (e.g. you didn't copy and paste the code) and the graphics seem general in nature and are not really unique and different.
Hi Drumat. Sorry for the delay, I was away.
I was saying just the opposite. As Feydakin commented, the look and feel comes before the code.
Inspiration is everywhere and there are millions of different things you can do. Learn and apply, even improve, get inspiration, some motivation, then design from scratch. That's the best way for your own self-trust and establishment too. Good luck!
So web designers work with a lot of constraints. This is okay for creative designers, but what happens when you need a very clean, bare look, or perhaps you don't have a huge amount of creative ability? In that case it's all in the small details.
This site is a very good example of that pared-down look, where very few of the elements on their own could be considered to be under copyright. The grid structure is used elsewhere, the colour combinations, the breadcrumb trail and even the world map on the logo are not unique. It's only the overall combination that could be easily defended from imitators.
Bob creates a site called "Amazany" to sell books.
This is the key point. Forget the layout for a moment. This isn't copyright; this is trademark. I'm no lawyer, but Bob would probably lose.
Trademark has two important elements:
1. Similar to existing mark - yep.
2. Applied to similar thing - books - yep.
Bob needs to think of another name at the very least.
I had asked this in another thread...and I think it is relevant here, too.
If the other Trademark (i.e...Amazon in this case) had a status of "Dead" with the Trademark Office....would that change Bob's likelihood of being able to secure the Trademark for "Amazany"?
