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.

And those links are to a "layout" not a "presentation".

So you're going to say the layout for the site I am designing is a copyright infrindgement because it mimics the layouts of several sites that I have visited and includes key pieces of those sites.
My web developer, his graphic designer and I will all show you a nice cliff to leap off of as you'll be wasting more breath trying to prove a moot point than the owners of those sites, that contain the specific pieces that I am mimicing, would be.... And they won't be worried about it because I can tell you sites that they mimic!!!

I can show you more prominant examples of web sites that utilize similar layouts and presentations... And these are by the big companies on the internet who could care less if company B used a similar paragraph indentation, or that they use a certain font in a certain CSS class called by the same name which by the way that can be overridden by a certain font from another CSS class called by the same name as yours.

There are only so many ways to say "hey, ya want to view a list of homes"... In text and CSS class names.

1st Amendment? A little article attached to our constitution that governs out freedom of speach. You may want to look it up as it may help. And it does apply because it's the first thing I, and many graphic artists, will throw in anybody's face who whimpers about my "website lookin' a wittle wike theirs".

And by the way, you were speaking of layouts and designs as the html code you pasted into your post above does nothing by layout a page. Nothing more, nothing less.

Original graphics, photographs can be wrapped under an implied copyright. Images used to create identity for a legal entity such as a corporation have their own little protector, its called a Trademark or servicemark. And if the corporation wants to be a stickler, they can apply a copyright as well.


I use the company Microsoft as example only. it could be any company!
Use a graphic from a company like Microsoft? Never in a million years out of respect for them, their creativity, work done to build what they have built and of course fear of the legal ramifications.

Use the layout from their MSDN website, you bet ya and I've already done it in a past job for a major corporation, shown it to Microsoft and they LOVED it!!!

If you have so much time to be worrying about this, then business must not be very good as you are spending far too much time worrying about your home page.

A page layout is impossible to defend but the unique expression/presention of the content on that page can be copyrighted.

Again, as stated in an earlier post, the U.S. copyright office actually encourages people to mimic or improve existing published copyrights and patents. They want you to mimic them because it helps to improve science.

It only becomes an infringement when a unique expression or process is copied.

Infringment on copyrights is hard to prove unless it's blatant theft as in titles to a copyright or process to a patent.

Site content like book content can be twisted so originality becomes an improved product.

Not my opinion, it is frequently thrown around by true artists/designers... I didn't come up with it.

If you want to play a game with yourself, think of something that you think is TRULY original and then see if you can trace it back to something else... get back with me in a few days when your tired of trying to find something... that is not over 500 years old. When you arrive at a piece of art in history that has no roots and is truly original then you realize the full meaning of the saying... have fun.

-J

double post

So it's not a court opinion but the opinions of many artists/designers.

Josh, are you confusing yourself with "IDEAS?"

Copyrights is not about ideas but about expression of those ideas.

Let's hope I don't come up with something that has been recorded at the copyright office.

Let's take a real life example say with the book " 7 habits of highly successful people."

The phrase is both a trademark and the title is a copyright.

Certainly we can all conjure up of 7 habits of our own but expressions and conveyances of the phrase is an infringement.

Ideas?

Oh Jaber, just don't worry about it, it's not worth trying to explain to you any further...

Move along now...

-J

For those interested in learning more..go to uspto.gov or copyright.gov.

Going and going........gone.

You're missing the point. Copyright isn't about something that is 100% unique and original. If something that to be 100% unique and original to have a copyright, nothing would! I can paint a bowl of fruit, which has been done thousands of times before, but as long as I don't copy another painting and I actually paint what I'm personally seeing I can copyright my work.

Look how the US government defines copyright:
Now look at the list of things that can be copywritten:
(emphasis mine)

The example I posted goes above and beyond paragraph indentation and font usage.

I am asking specifically what the 1st ammendment has to do with this discussion about copyright. The first ammendment deals with the rights of citizens of the united states in relation to the government, not private citizens with each other.

What? That doesn't make any sense.

So I post a few things on a message board and all of the sudden I'm spending too much time worrying about this? I have a discussion about copyright issues on the web and that means I'm worry about my home page?

HUH? You're not making ANY sense.

Which is exactly why you would have a fun time trying to get a copyright on a website layout, there are just too many out there that have the same layouts... I'm glad you used the bowl of fruit, you backed up my reasons perfectly...

-J

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that anyone try to copyright a page layout. I said that people should protect their designs, but I never said that anyone should try to get a copyright.

I still want to hear what BGlines is talking about regarding the 1st ammendment, hopefully he'll post up soon.

The original post was talking about copyright source code / databases which would also mean the layout (source code defines the layout.) So maybe you just forgot what the original post was about...

-J

Man, did I rub you the wrong way at some point?

Source code / database design is NOT the same as layout.

...oh crap, your kidding right?

The source code would contain the information that defines the layout, you do know this right? So when he says copyright that (source code), I think it's understood that he means all data, layout, and content within that source code.

Please don't forget what my previous career was before being a real estate agent.

-J

Actually, it's possible to create HTML that defines almost NO presentation (layout), but I'm sure you knew that. HTML should NOT define presentation, but I'm sure you knew that too.

So now you're saying that if I create a website for a client I cannot copyright the source code, html, css, php whatever that I used to create that site?

Don't try to make the jump from "Can I copyright the source code" to "Can I copyright the layout". If you read the original post you'll see that the author was asking if the content (text and images) is the only thing that he could obtain a copyright for, OR if he could also obtain one for the "database", I'm not sure what he means by that.

Edit: You say that HTML cannot be protected, where are you coming up with this? Is this from personal experience?

Once again, putting words in my mouth...

I NEVER said the word HTML, I said source code, source code would be all that defines and makes up the page, including but not limited to the HTML source code, the CSS source code, the PHP source code, etc.

You clear now? Don't be so limited in your thinking that you think "source code" means HTML...

-J

When did I previously put words in your mouth?

Obviously I don't think that "source code" refers to HTML seing as I said...

To which you didn't even respond BTW!


It's common to refer to the "source code" of a web page as the HTML. I mean really, the PHP/C#/Servlet which created the page doesn't really count in this context as the client never sees any of it. That leaves HTML and CSS and assuming one knows what they're doing they can create a website that functions and appears properly without the use of CSS (as in no presentational markup in the HTML), so that leaves us to define a web page as the HTML that makes up said web page.

I guess the only reason why I'm still posting in this thread is because I want to get a straight answer out of you regarding the ability to copyright a web page I create using HTML, CSS, PHP or whatever else I decide to use. All of that code is Copyright me.

Do you agree or NOT agree with that?

Off topic but... Seriously, did we get off on the wrong foot or something? You seem to be being more of an ass than necessary.

No I do not think you could copyright the source code of your page, maybe some "sniplet" of code that did something you could somehow call "unique" and show that ten thousand sites aren't already doing it anyways... other than that, no to the copyrighting of your entire "source code" of your page.

-J

Ah okay. FYI, you CAN copyright the "source code" of a website. When someone writes the HTML, CSS, PHP and any other "code" for a website they are creating a new creative work. Copyright is automatically granted on this type of creative work, you don't need to register, although there are benefits.

The U.S. Copyright Office allows for the copyright of software, which is made up of source code, which they specifically state can be registered as a literary work.

Hope that clears things up.

This copyright debate with source codes and new layout thing is enough to drive people nuts.

A webpage or layout as a whole ( source code ) consists of the sum the individual pieces consisting of artwork, expression and method of application.

If you change any part of the product ( source code ) something else changes whether visibly or not. Put it another way, a song is a source code that is made up of individual pieces to create an expression that can be copyrighted.

Any changes made to the song changes the source code whether visibily or not.

So if changes to a song can alter the source code ( song ) then why do get sued over infringement of "parts" of a song.

I would say that a source and all individual pieces of the source code are copyrighted, otherwise, I could take any song, modify one or two lines and claim ownership.

So how can we encourage people to improve on a prior artwork when any duplication of substance of the formal source code, song,
expression, etc.. can be considered an infringement?

For example I could write a completely different book but if any part of the source code, book, makes any reference to the "millionaire real estate agent" I could be infringing on the book "million air real estate agent."

It doesn't have to infrings on the whole but the any or all individual pieces.

The court continuously awards infringement of the individual piecework yet at the same time encourages authors and creators to improve on the prior artwork.

< yawn >

I hope this clarifies.....

LOL

I think we've beat this horse enough Jaber, thanks for the reply.

I'm sticking to my original statement, good luck copyrighting and open source "program" such as a web page you put together, GOOD LUCK! While you may be able to get a copyright on a "piece" of it, like I said, a "snipet", don't count on being able to copyright an entire page, "ain't gonna happen."

With your statement:

That is easy to apply to a compiled program, but not to an open script "program" aka page that is out on the web.

In theory, you should be able to copyright ALL the source code (keyword: all), but good luck actually getting it done. Try it.

-J

It's pretty obvious now that you've got no idea what you're talking about. I think that signals the end of this thread for me.

Realtypresence, be careful, Josh may threaten not to ever respond to your posts again. hahaha

He did it to me awhile back..but I'm glad he's with us again.

I guess we'll see what happens.

And why do you think this? How long did you work in the web field? Have you EVER worked in the web development field?

I said you can copyright HTML, however it is a real grey area. There is a limit to how much you can copyright. You can't copyright simple HTML for example, for two reasons, you didn't come up with the HTML language to begin with, and secondly there is only so many ways to really write tags to layout a page, after the 4 or 5 basic types of site layouts it's all about the same.

Run your mouth all you want, but what I am saying is pretty much understood in the web dev world. Now don't misunderstand this for me saying that you can't copyright "content" or that you can't copyright any HTML, but to copyright an entire page just simply isn't going to happen.

What are you an expert at besides being a real estate agent? Whatever it is, I wouldn't sit here and tell you that you are wrong if I wasn't in that field either... so have a little respect.

-J

Perhaps the issue is whether one can copy the content of a particular HTML page?

I suppose then there are two issues.

one being the content of the page as viewed by the public and second being the content of the page as viewed by the developer.

I agree with Josh on this one. You can't copyright the html language itself because that's like copyrighting the Roman characters.

but you can certainly copyright the content of any html page.

My DEAR friend, smurf or my DEER friend, smurf.

Yes I have, for a while now.

1. This is your problem. You don't understand the concept of a copyright. I would not be getting a copyright for HTML, I would be getting a copyright for my implementation of the HTML. A writer does not copyright the english language, he copyrights his implementation of the language.

2. Again, it's not about copyrighting a three column layout, or a header, body, footer layout, it's about copyrighting my own personal creative implementation.

Take this example. A writer authors a romance novel (in english). He can obtain a copyright on his work because it's his/her own creative work. He is using the english language, which he did not invent (HTML) and he is writing a story that is probably very similar to other romance novels (web pages) yet he can still copyright his work.

Ask a lawyer about copyright law, they'll tell you that you're wrong. If you were correct a writer couldn't copyright a story because they didn't invent the English language, a musician couldn't copyright a song because they didn't invent music and an artist couldn't copyright a painting because they didn't invent paint. See how your logic fails when you apply it to OTHER forms of copyright?

I'm no RE agent, I'm a web developer. I have also taken the time to actually read the information on www.copyright.gov and I have also spoken to a number of lawyers who have confirmed my conclusions. I wouldn't be telling you that you're wrong if you weren't, but you are, and it's clear that you just don't understand copyright, or else you wouldn't be saying the things that you're saying. I mean no disrespect, in fact I've been quite cordial with you in our exchanges.

It's not about getting a copyright for HTML. Again, a writer is not trying to copyright the language in which he writes.

Man, I thought I was supposed to be done with this thread.

From Roman characters to English, to book. I need a copyright lawyer to help implement my ideas.

From html to layout to site content.

Simple enough.

No I understand copyright law, and I understand what a lawyer will tell you, but I also understand what would really happen if you got a copyright on the entire source code for the pages on your website then tried to accuse the multi-million other sites of infracting upon your website's copyright, like I said, "ain't going to happen." Theory and reality are two completely different things... one reason someone would never do this is you should be changing your website up enough every 6 months to a year to freshen it up that you'd run yourself ragged getting a new copyright for your new source every year... this is actually funny...

You would be done if you would quit misinterpreting what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be talking about copyrighting the actual syntax... again, your misunderstanding.

Go ahead, spend the money/time getting a copyright for the ACTUAL, ENTIRE source code for your website... thing is, that doesn't mean it'd hold up in court if you tried to say these (millions of sites) were violating your copyright... what a joke!

This thread is a dead horse now, you can continue to think that you can copyright the entire source AND actually uphold it against the millions of others and I'll continue to view reality, either way, I'm never going to copyright my entire source (my content yes, source no) and neither are you, so it doesn't matter either way.

-J

*sigh*

At least I tried. :rolleyes: