Has anyone submitted their website for a copyright registration certificate? I see some on-line sources and read an attorney's write-up on how to do it depending on whether the site is just graphical/text or includes a database. The cheap on-line services don't seem to work for larger, complex sites. The attorney's site I saw mentioned he can submit CD-ROM's with the source code and database info.

I'm curious if anyone has done this, what steps they took, how much it cost, etc...

Good luck, HTML can't be protected, and coding styles are so varied and generic at the same time that it would be really hard to hold anything up in court. In other words, good luck "copyrighting" a layout, but things you should worry about copyrighting would be articles you write, your logo (actually registering your trademark), things of that nature...

-J

It's actually not that difficult to make the case for another website stealing your particular layout, especially when the thief uses your exact HTML source or uses the exact same CSS styles.

Rather than handling the problem through the courts, which would be costly and time consuming, most "copyright" issues can be solved by contacting the webhost which is hosting the infringing material. These companies are not looking to be sued because they're hosting a stolen or hijacked webpage.

That is the thing, the HTML source isn't going to be exactly the same... there are what, over 10 billion pages on the internet? Probably more... you should concern yourself with other issues not this one, that is my point.

Besides, there hasn't been anything "original" designed in the last 500 years, so if someone says their layout is original and wants to copyright it, well "good luck" is all I have to say.

-J

Sure the HTML might not be exactly the same but consider this example

original:
Stolen:
It's amazingly similar. I've seen a lot of this kind of code theft before. People just change a few class and id names and think they're okay. I think that everyone should be concerned with copyright issues. If you're website is the best in your region and you've got a lot of people who recognize your site as part of your brand and somebody steals your design you might be in trouble.

Take this for example:
http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/001068.php

You're missing the point, just because you think your design is "original" doesn't make it so. All of it is derived from something else, so why you think you have a line on something and it is creative, I beg to differ. Even if you do copyright the layout, your layout was derived from someone else's work, something else you saw out there, so in itself it truly should have never been able to be copyrighted itself. The main thing you are doing when you copyright a site is protecting the "content" not the layout or source code. This was my previous profession, so while what you say is the theoretical "perfect world" scenario, it just doesn't work that way. Most of my design knowledge comes from someone who has been in the business for over 40 years and was my mentor in learning design, which was a big undertaking since I'm a mainly left-brained person (analytical, logical, mathematical.)

-J

I agree with Josh. You should be concerned with what the site contains more than how it looks. You can protect your original pictures and written content, but not much else.

We've seen this before and the fact that it's coming up in the Real Estate Industry doesn't make any newer.

Actual Content, as in pictures, graphics, original works, writings, can all be assumed to be under implied copyright that can be legally defended by providing proof of being the original creator.
To take it the next step would be to place the CopyRight tag on your site.
Next would to be to actually submit application for and receive copyright for the content.

But, layout and look/feel cannot be copyrighted. Never has been, never will be. Imagine this, Mr. Builder builds a house in a certain shape, you drive by it and like how it looks. You have someone design a house that looks like it. Copyright infringement? No, not if you didn't use the content from the original house in your design. Not if you didn't enter the other house, take measurements (ie. review the plans informally) and build from there.

If creative layour was copyrightable, the 1st ammendment would eventually run out of space as there would be nothing we would be able to design that others haven't already done.

From a web perspective, every developer cannabilizes code from others. I believe code snipletts can be copyrighted, but the process cannot.

We've been going this since day one and will continue to do it.

Thank you Brett, nice hear from another "web guy."

-J

I realize that each design and layout builds on or at least borrows from another design. However there are examples, like the link I posted above, where the entire look and feel of a site is so obviously copied that it creates the possibility that someone might confuse your site with your competition's.

I'm not sure I understand how the 1st ammendment has anything to do with the topic?

I'm not sure how I'm missing the point. I never said anything about copyrighting layouts, or original designs.

Just because designers find inspiration from other designers and designs doesn't mean that you cannot copyright a business logo for instance. That's essentially what you're saying; no design is original because it is created by borrowing from other designs.

US copyright laws and patents, in particular, were created for the betterment of science. You are exchanging for protection of your creative expression and process ( with expiration ), and in return, you agree to publish for the public to improve.

Again, Brett is on par in describing that one author can borrow designs and improve or deviate/alter from the original art.

Registered trademarks are much easier to enforce when infringed because they are often unique to a specific industry.

But creative expressions whether copyright or patent are easily defendable when a process or specific expression has been infringed.

Real life court cases that could help to determine what's copyrighted and what's not.

http://www.inman.com/inmannews.aspx?ID=45104

If an art has creativity and originality then it's copyrightable. If you improve on someone's creativity/originality ( designs, constructions, etc.. ) then it's not defendable.

I've said it a million times, in the world of art there has not been anything truly original (in the purest sense) in the last 500 years.

-J

Josh, you might have to say it a million more times because creative expression in the artform is what copyrights and patents are all about.

Can you cite a court case where a judge concurs
there has not been anything truly original in the last 500 years? Is this Josh's opinion or actual reference to a specific court ruling?

:D Funny stuff.