copywrite 'look and feel' and 'codes'

[thinkbig]

Was curious as to if you can get in trouble for creating a site with similiar look and feel and coding. We have created a new site by borrowing some ideas from existing sites and tweaking them slightly. There are many things similiar but not a blatant copy and paste code deal.

We were reading the fine print in the terms of use section and stumbled across this, is it just template jargon or does it hold weight?

'Company X owns all worldwide right, title and interest in and to all documentation, software, contents, graphics, designs, data, computer codes, ideas, know-how, “look and feel,” compilations, magnetic translations, digital conversions and other materials included within the Website and related to the Website, and all modifications and derivative works thereof, and all intellectual property rights related thereto. '

I then read further down ....

'Except for that information which is in the public domain or for which you have been given express written permission, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary information.'

What confuses me is the 'except for tht info which is in the public domain' wouldnt that be considered the website that any user can participate in?

So i guess the main question is to what extent can you copy similiar code and implement into your new venture and not get a notice in the mail from company x lawyer

[BigDave]

Ignore what the website claims, and learn what is allowed by copyright law in your country. Just because they claim it doesn't mean that it is so.

[jtara]

What confuses me is the 'except for tht info which is in the public domain' wouldnt that be considered the website that any user can participate in?

"Public domain" means, generally, that either:

- The creator has explicitly disclaimed any copyright interest. e.g. "put it in the public domain".

- The work is not eligible for copyright protection under the law

- Copyright protection on the work has expired

It has nothing to do with the creator making it accessible on the web! From Wikipedia:

These factors have reinforced the false notion that "freely obtained" means "public domain." One could argue that the Internet is a publicly-available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are not dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition.

Note that works that are licensed under any of the various "public licenses" (e.g. GPL, Creative Commons, etc.) are NOT in the public domain. In that case, there are specific licensing terms that must be adhered to. You are granted limited rights to copy, modify and use the work at no cost, within the bounds of the license terms.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of public domain:

Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction.

Wikipedia: Public Domain [en.wikipedia.org]

Basically what this site is saying is "everything on this site is copyrighted by us, expect for the parts that aren't (because they can't be)."