Forum Moderators: open
Is this OK? All the content is my own, but I have used the HTML/CSS framework that somebody else wrote. I haven't done this, just pondering the question. I don't think I would mind if somebody did this to me.
Is HTML and CSS copyrightable?
There is nothing anyone can do to stop you. It's still copyrighted work, and it's still stealing. If you think the "look" is clean, you will most likely also be stealing graphics.
However, the truth is the code itself most likely came from some other source in the first place, so in a sense we've all borrowed, exchanged, intermixed and added our own flavor to chunks of code to make it our own.
Those that would argue this are probably under the impression they have created something that has never been done before, and are most likely to jump in here and cry copyright. But the truth is, any chunk of html or CSS you copy from a site is likely to be out there in duplicate thousands of times.
From your standpoint, you are likely to run into the same problem car owners have that have no understanding of how their car works: you steal this thing and try to add your content and it breaks, and you have no idea why.
Your best shot is to go ahead and view those html and css files, examine them, see how they work, and apply some of the methods used in them, but make it your own. Add your own flair, understand the logic behind the original creation, you'll be doing the author a much better service in studying their work rather than just copying it and pasting it.
"I wouldn't mind" - once you've done the work, wrangled for hours over a cross-browser problem and finally solved it on your own, get it all debugged and working, trust me - you will see this very differently.
If you see a standard layout that you like and copy this using your own graphics, colour scheme and images then it is doubtful that any copyright infringement claim would stick. To my mind the end product is what you see on the screen not the code behind it. If you use CSS that someone else has written to create a site that does not look anything like the original then it would be very difficult (impossible?) to build a case in court.
I agree with Bill. It's the nature of the Internet to copy ideas and concepts. Who hasn't used some CSS snippet which originally came from somewhere else? If an idea is seen to work then other people will use it and that's how the Internet has developed.
It's a bit like if you see an image of a local landmark that you really like. You may not steal it but you could jump in the car with your camera and go and take a similar shot for yourself. The image composition (or layout) would be essentially similar to the original but you would not be guilty of any copyright infringement.
Note that these are just my opinions, which may be wrong, but I can find no reference anywhere to any successful action being raised for CSS or HTML code theft.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong?
And no, I really wouldn't care if somebody took my HTML or CSS. I think you are right that we've all kind of borrowed from others anyway. I did menu hover graphics with a CSS technique that I found on the net (probably Eric Meyer or something like that).
Wow, I just wrote more than I thought I would! Thanks for your input, that's what I wanted - to hear what other webmasters think.
As far as copying an entire website layout whether legal or not I wouldn't be comfortable doing it myself. I find even "borrowing" code to be a little annoying but if its the easiest, simplest and best solution I'll use it.
If you wrote it from scratch you'd end up with something pretty similar, so go ahead and pinch the code. I would.
You have to be careful about the design though, the asthetic appearance may give you away if it's exactly the same. This is something that I would bother about myself.
I wouldn't however pinch someone's JavaScript, that stuff takes time and considerable skill to create (if it's any good).
there's generally only 1 or 2 ways to produce a given page
An underestimate if ever I saw one. ;)
Referring to this, I mean structures such as "two-column fixed, with left menu, header and footer". Look around in the css forum, I am sure there are references there to some of the more well-known resources.
It's once you get past that point that the potential problems arise. Javascript functions, Flash, images, etc., can all be subject to copyright, or part of a commercial offering and there, I would say, is where you need to start being aware of the issues you raise.
So HTML and CSS is protected by copyright law in the US?
Creat a table in HTML:
<table>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</table>
OK, I declare I own that. You cannot use it without my permission.
I also own
<div></div>
and
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
or is it only for ALL things that are between BODY tags?
<body>
<div id="container">
<div id="leftnav"></div>
<div id="content"></div>
</div>
</body>
I don't think you can copyright it, since there are limited ways in which you can code pages. That goes for CSS and JavaScript as well.
Chip-
Copying the look and feel of a website is in many cases copying the "artsy" part of a website, and hence should be without a doubt a copyright violation (all depending on the exact wording of the law under which it is protected).
Copyright is never intended to protect the way to do something (the idea), but is intended to protect the expression of that idea.
E.g. it'll does not protect the idea of writing a novel where the butler did it, but it'll protect the words, the drawings, etc. of the cover, the text of the book etc.
So in my book:
- if you copy a css file: copyright problem
- if you look at other css files to see how they solve a problem, no problem at all from a copyright point of view if you use the same method to solve the problem. (might be a patent issue, but living where software patents are void and nonexistent I really don't care about them at all).
For all clarity: INAL.
--
edit: fixed typo
[edited by: swa66 at 8:47 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
Being inspired by a site and using some of it as a jumping off point is good time management.
I mean how many 2 or 3 column layouts can there be?
Show me an original HTML/CSS website and I will show you original HTML/CSS site that is similar. It is called re-purposing... why re-invent the wheel?
If I learn to play guitar by playing nothing but Led Zepplin then I write some songs you better believe the songs will be sound and be similar to Led Zepplin songs... no-one would freak out if I said I based my songs on their songs and was inspired by them.
Bil and Bee I wonder how many shopping cart products do you use? How many of those have you written yourselves?
Most of the people complaining about this activity avail themselves of open source and free products all the time. They don't mind using things built by others and using it to profit, but they mind very much if someone even re-words a paragraph they wrote.
There is too much stuff out there for everything to be original now..... I don't see a problem as long as you customize it enough to be distinctly yours.
I don't know how you could copyright code.
Most of the examples of code you gave are trivial pieces of code, not expressions of "art". Copyrights isn't intended to protect trivial things (e.g. you cannot copyright "howdy!"), more elaborate expressions (like e.g. a speech you give for accepting your webby award), are perfectly copyrighted, from the moment you create it.
Copyright is automatic, you do not need (and outside the US you even cannot) register or need to claim it, by creating the "work of art" it is automatically yours. You can donate the rights away to the public domain if you would choose to do so.
All software by definition falls under copyright rules.
I don't know how you could copyright code.
The U.S. Copyright office has a guide telling you just how to do so:
Copyright Registration for Computer Programs [copyright.gov]
[copyright.gov...]
You'll note that the Copyright Office document specifically refers to protection of "a computer program that establishes the format of text and graphics on the computer screen when a website is viewed (such as a program written in html)."
I don't know how you could copyright code.
You can, I mean that is how most software works.
HTML is not code AKA not a programing language, it is a markup language.
No one owns the rights to this....
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<h1>Hello World</h1>
<p>This is my world</p>
</body>
</html>
don't copy use the above HTML to start a website from... that is my layout.
Most of the examples of code you gave are trivial pieces of code, not expressions of "art".
Like I said... how many 2-3 column layouts can there be?
If the copyrightable part of it is the artist part of it then him changing colors and images should be enough... who cares if he copies a CSS class that has a inline <ul> or nice floated divs set up already? How many ways are there to do an inline <ul> and how many ways are there to float a div?
The other thing that is considered is how it affects the original, if he changes all images and content then NO-ONE can make an argument that it would hurt the original site.
[edited by: Demaestro at 9:01 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
A judge wouldn't need to be involved because all you have to do is sent a cease and desist letter to the isp and 9 times out of ten it will be taken down. Could your site survive being forcibly taken down?
It is obvious if you take someones html and just tweak the colours etc, imagine webmaster world with a different logo and different colours.
^ Does the Copyright office make that distinction though?Most of the examples of code you gave are trivial pieces of code, not expressions of "art".How much code constitutes not being trivial? What if I floated a couple of divs to the right, and one to the left?
As stated before I live outside the US, there is no local "copyright office" out here at all (esp. as registration doesn't exist out here, there wouldn't be a task for them to do at all)
Still a quick look at:
[copyright.gov...]
To me states "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)" are not copyrighted ...
Hence it seems the US laws are in sync on this with other countries (which is most often the case for most countries and most aspects of copyright law).
You'll note that the Copyright Office document specifically refers to protection of "a computer program that establishes the format of text and graphics on the computer screen when a website is viewed (such as a program written in html)."
You are confusing two things HTML is not a computer program.... the computer program that ""establishes the format of text and graphics on the computer screen when a website is viewed""... is actually what FireFox does and what IE, Safari and other browsers do... those programs are what they are talking about. The HTML defines the layout.. the program that renders it is the computer program.
You are confusing two things HTML is not a computer program.... the computer program that ""establishes the format of text and graphics on the computer screen when a website is viewed""... is actually what FireFox does and what IE, Safari and other browsers do... those programs are what they are talking about. The HTML defines the layout.. the program that renders it is the computer program.
Are you trying to say web browsers cannot be copyrighted? Please think carefully about your answer as a multi-billion dollar industry depends on the dillusion that you can actually copyright a browser (and any code in fact).
Look at the top of any source code file, the first line is normally a copyright statement. You don't need to register copyright for it to be yours.
This post is my copyright.
No that is not what I am saying please re-read what you are quoting.
I am saying that this....
"a computer program that establishes the format of text and graphics on the computer screen when a website is viewed "
.....is applicable to browsers not HTML.. so I am saying it is browsers that fall in this area not HTML meaning it that code base is copyrightable.
However if someone is doing something unique and different and you copy it they may be able to come after you.
What would be unique in HTML and CSS?
How many ways are there to set up an HTML page? Think about it.
Oh wow he floated a div and gave it a margin and padding and defined a min-height and width. Wish I had thought of that first so I could do it too.
[edited by: Demaestro at 9:32 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
since he is re-designing the layout himself with new colors and images I don't see it being a copyright issue.
It depends on how much is taken to either fall under the derived work (copyright protects this) or either just using the "mechanical" part of making it work (algorithm like parts are not protected).
To be safe: reuse the algorithm, but stay away from copying it all as you're likely to create a derivative work if you do that. Esp. so if the CSS is elaborate in what it does.
It's like writing your new novel by first cut-and-pasting an e-book in it and then trying to remove the "trouble" content.
Write it from scratch for yourself and you're automatically in the clear.
Like I said... how many 2-3 column layouts can there be?
If the copyrightable part of it is the artist part of it then him changing colors and images should be enough...
who cares if he copies a CSS class that has a inline <ul> or nice floated divs set up already? How many ways are there to do an inline <ul> and how many ways are there to float a div?
The other thing that is considered is how it affects the original, if he changes all images and content then NO-ONE can make an argument that it would hurt the original site.
First, code is protected by copyright. Copyright attaches at the moment of creation. However, in copyright law, especially in computer code, not everything is protected. Generally speaking, ideas are not protected and expression is. (This is called the idea/expression dichotomy and it comes up in lots of situations) In software cases, you have to look at whether what has been implemented is the only way of implementing something (or it's the most efficient way). This is because if there is only one way to implement something, and you implement it that way, we don't give you an absolute right to prevent other people from doing something that way.
The hard part comes when you try to actually tell the difference. Is taking someone's template and placing your own text taking their idea? or is it taking their expression? If all you do is take their way of implementing a css rollover menu, then that's more likely taking of their idea. If you take the general flow of their layout "a couple div tags arranged like so and so to implement a two column liquid layout" then that too (at least to me) looks like taking of an idea.
Taking an entire layout including CSS (best guess) would probably, generally speaking, be over the line. How they arrange things on the screen -- their particular layout -- there is at least some minimal level of original, expressive content in *that* and copying *that* would be protected.
It's like writing your new novel by first cut-and-pasting an e-book in it and then trying to remove the "trouble" content.
No.... it is like taking an old press-wheel template from a book that was printed previously and removing all the content and replacing all the titles, paragraphs and pictures in it to yours... keeping the layout.
_________
¦ title ¦
¦text ¦
¦text ¦
¦image ¦
¦footer ¦
Can we stop calling a markup language(HTML), computer code... it is not a programming language.
If you think HTML is a programming language then I would like to see you code database interaction with it.
Show me a loop in HTML. How about an "if" statement.
Face facts here... HTML is not a programming language.
[edited by: Demaestro at 9:38 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
There's nothing at all keeping you from "snipping" someone else's hard-made markup, but that doesn't mean it's right. But would you? If the layout (I speak not here of the colors, graphics, etc) is commonplace, or it comes from a common and known source (extendable liquid three-column <div> layout, anyone?) "cut n' pasting" could be acceptable... but personally I would either ask permission to "use the creator's solution", and/or give the creator a commented credit above the code (many ask exactly that).
But "copyright" the use of a markup code? Not at all. For some perspective, just think of the billions of websites out there, and slap this up against html's few layout possibilities, as well as its many limitations - how many sites are alike? If markup were protectable, the lawsuits would never end!
[edited by: Josefu at 9:59 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
