Copyright of Site Flow/Functionality

As opposed to copyright of design

[TheVisitor]

Let's say I have thought of a 'new' way to sell red widgets online. There are already many, many red widget sites, but the buying process on all of them is cumbersome, as the product has complex options. On my new site (not yet launched), the visitor gets taken though a series of options that make the purchasing process radically easier and smoother than the other myriad of red widget sites, which all currently sell in the same way. My site really does have a different way of looking at the buying process. I know that, as soon as my site is seen by the competition, they are going to want to change their models to mimic mine.

Now - the site functionality is 'expressed' in bespoke code, but natuarally a different coding environment could be used to do the same job. So I couldn't copyright the code.

The document in this thread [webmasterworld.com...] explains that copyrightable elements are 'text...pictures...images...videos...' (please note this is a document covering the EU). The document goes on to say "...copyright does not protect either ideas (even if the latter are 'great' or 'original'), or methods or styles (even if original). Therefore, when creating a website, we can inspire ourselves by styles developed by others, provided that no formal elements are copied".

So should I just resign myself to the fact that my 'great' and 'original' functionality is effectively public domain?

[photon]

I think a process falls under the purview of a patent instead of copyright.

[netguy]

Unfortunately, pioneers are often the ones with the arrows in their backs. ;)

I think in your case, the best thing to do is simply try to scare people away. When I am trying to buy some time on a new design that is difficult to properly protect, I place a "design protected by" logo at the bottom, along with extensive copyright language and a link to much more. I also add copyrights near the html code itself using <!comments>.

In a few cases I have even filed a 'provisional patent,' which allows you to put 'patent pending' on your site. In reality it means very little, since a patent for what you are doing would probably never be approved, but for about $50, a single-page provisional patent application allows you to use 'patent pending' on your site for 12 months.

I used to have designs ripped off all the time in the mid 90s. One idiot copied an entire homepage including my copyright notice! Since I started putting more emphasis on copyright notices, I haven't had a single problem that I'm aware of.

There is no stopping somebody that is determined to steal, but you can throw up some obstacles that will make him/her reluctant to proceed on your particular site.

Steve

<added>This is of course in addition to filing a standard copyright registration. Having your site on file at the copyright office provides some additional protection over just a copyright notice on the pages.</added>

[TheVisitor]

Thanks for the useful advice guys. I'll look into the patent/copyright distinction, and file the site where appropriate, as well as mark the site itself.

[BigDave]

Software patents are not yet (and hopefully never will be) law in the EU.

[netguy]

BigDave, yes, the provisional patent only applies to the U.S.
Maybe Brett should put a little flag next to each name. ;)

[BigDave]

Well, I just assumed that if TheVisitor was reading about EU copyrights that they were from an EU country.

[buckworks]

Apple couldn't do a thing about it when Microsoft "borrowed" major aspects of the Macintosh look and feel and used it for Windows. They went to court and lost.

Some research on that might help you to spot some pitfalls.

[BigDave]

Well, Apple wassn't on all that firm of footing since they "borrowed" most of the look & feel from Xerox.