Taking Somone Else's Code

[efoto]

I have noticed recently a few personal websites and blogs that contain the Apple.com fit and finish, basically they look the exact same with different content and different button names. I was just curious what the legitimacy of taking code from Apple, or anyone else, is for use in a personal website.

This comes down to wanting to make my site look nicer without putting a ton of work into it (due to lack of time/skill). If I happen to take some images (buttons, not stock photos or anything) from a site and use them, am I going to piss people off??

 

[CanadaRAM]

Do you even have to ask?

Web HTML code is copyrightable text just the same as a novel, song lyric or advertising copy. And the graphics themselves are as well.

Apple is forcing Google to close some Adwords accounts because the advertiser used the word "Mac" in their title... (Adam Engst on Tidbits - latest insallment http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08274)

Clayj: Copyright is inherent on all created works, it does not require registration.

 

[clayj]

That's totally fine... as long as you don't use the code for commercial purposes, or as long as you don't slam Apple (e.g., applesucks.com) using their own code, no one will really care. It's one of the reasons why we have 'View Source' as an option in virtually every web browser... seeing how the code works encourages increased web page development.

EDIT: Does anyone actually ever copyright their HTML?

 

[wordmunger]

EDIT: Does anyone actually ever copyright their HTML?

You don't have to "copyright" it. You own the copyright as soon as you produce it. The only time you need to register a copyright is if you're planning on proceeding with legal action against a copyright infringer. That can be done after the fact--you don't need to register in advance.

 

[efoto]

You don't have to "copyright" it. You own the copyright as soon as you produce it. The only time you need to register a copyright is if you're planning on proceeding with legal action against a copyright infringer. That can be done after the fact--you don't need to register in advance.

If that is the case, is what clayj said still valid? If I liked someone else's code on a given site could I reproduce it for a personal site/blog type setup or would that be prosecutable?

As far as copyrights go, I was unaware that everything was instantly copyrighten the moment it was published, it seems registration would need to take place to make anything else happen. What is to prove that I didn't happen to write the same code as someone else? (not me, but someone web-savvy)

 

[strider42]

If that is the case, is what clayj said still valid? If I liked someone else's code on a given site could I reproduce it for a personal site/blog type setup or would that be prosecutable?

As far as copyrights go, I was unaware that everything was instantly copyrighten the moment it was published, it seems registration would need to take place to make anything else happen. What is to prove that I didn't happen to write the same code as someone else? (not me, but someone web-savvy)

Yes, it would be prosecutable. The only way around it would be argue fair use, which usually requires using only a snippet of code for educational or personal use. If you create a webpage using code someone else wrote, and that code is just wholesale lifted because you couldn't bother being original or whatever, the its copyright infringement. You might win the case in the end, but someone could easily bring you to court for it.

That said, this goes on all the time, and most of the time they don't care unelss you are using it for a competing site, or critizing them, or otherwise infringing on their brand in a negative way.

And yes, its true the copyrights don't have to be registered. It is the right to copy, and you don't have to register for your rights, no matter what they are. You produce something, you own it. Period. The only time it gets tricky is when there is a dispute about who made something first. Then having a registered copyright is pretty useful.

And as for how to prove who wrote something first, well, that's why we have courts. If they can't prove infringment, they can't get anything from you.

edit: probably a bigger deal than stealing code is stealing graphics. Most html code does basic stuff that's just part of the language and would therefor not be copyrightable. but the graphics placed on the page by that code are often unique and copyrightable.

Further edit: you don't have to publishs omething for it to be copyrighted. the moment you make it you own the sole rights to copy it. You can publish it, or sit on it. Its your creation to do with what you want.

 

[CanadaRAM]

If that is the case, is what clayj said still valid? If I liked someone else's code on a given site could I reproduce it for a personal site/blog type setup or would that be prosecutable?

Kinda like saying, if I siphon gas from your car, but only for personal use, would that be prosecutable?

It doesn't much matter what your intended use is, personal corporate, non-profit, profit. Copyright infringement is prosecutable, are are infringements trademarks and industrial design (look and feel). Whether they do or not depends on whether the owner is 1) aware and 2) motivated to do something about it.

In the USA, the main exception to copyright prosecution is the "Fair Use" doctrine, which provides exemption for educational, reporting or commentary use, if that use is non-commercial and uses a small portion of the whole work (that is a simplification, there are actually several 'fuzzy' criteria together, and it is not well defined but is sent to court to judge if it is over the lineor not). It would be tough to argue that copying Apple's style, code and graphics for the purposes of having to work less hard making a site would fall under that fair use umbrella.

edit: probably a bigger deal than stealing code is stealing graphics. Most html code does basic stuff that's just part of the language and would therefor not be copyrightable. but the graphics placed on the page by that code are often unique and copyrightable.

Heh-- you type faster than me. Since the whole point of the exercise is to "get something that looks good like Apple's without working hard for it" the overall look and feel would argue toward the HTML code also being protectable.

 

[ChicoWeb]

This thread is funny because I've had my website ripped off, stolen, reproduced quite a few times. It's a slap in the face when someone jacks your stuff. I've even had a web designer in town jack my layout and try to pawn it off as his own to a client. His client came to me instead.

Like everyone above said, its copyright material. Why not go try to come up w/ something to call your own. Even if it does suck, at least it's all yours. We all had to start somewhere.

The only reason I caught one person doing this is because he/she left my SEO code/image at the bottom and someone click back to my site and I saw it in the referrals. It was to much.

 

[efoto]

I realize it is wrong upfront, no question about it. Apple's site was an example because I have seen it ripped a few times before for people's personal sites.

Although making something myself would be ideal, I have neither the time/knowledge/money to get that done and therefore was interesting in "borrowing" some things. I realize the implications of it, but as someone said I was also concerned with the real-world application part of it.

I a snag a couple of graphics from a page, change their color and meaning, and use it for a personal site/blog, is anyone really going to care? I can see how in ChicoWeb's example that would suck as someone was trying to profit for his work which I would disagree with. Would it be a good or bad idea to add a little image in the corner saying "images from xxxx site"?

Edit: You may not agree with what I am doing, but just for the record I really do have moderately decent intentions (save for the initial theft I suppose). I really just don't have the time/knowledge to do it myself or the money to pay for it. I won't be selling anything and certainly won't be talking poorly about the site who owns the graphics....not that this all makes it right, I'm just stating it so you all know I'm only a clepto and not a complete a**wipe.

 

[snkTab]

I can just see all 500,000 owners of all the pictures on edesignuk's post, come down on him about copyright infringement.

That said, if you copy something without the owners permission, you are asking for trouble. Too bad trouble doesn't care who you are and will never come, no matter how cool you say your parties are going to be.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Since no-one's mentioned it yet, I thought I'd point out Creative Commons - many premiere web developers license their work under a CC "copyright" that allows you to use the work under certain terms. It's a great alternative to the usual black/white copyright issues that come up in discussions like this.

As open and readily re-usable as HTML, images and javascript can be it creates quite a gray area for fair use - my rule of thumb is that if you're not making money off someone else's work you're probably OK. If you don't know, check with the owner - all they can say is "no".

 

[efoto]

Since no-one's mentioned it yet, I thought I'd point out Creative Commons - many premiere web developers license their work under a CC "copyright" that allows you to use the work under certain terms. It's a great alternative to the usual black/white copyright issues that come up in discussions like this.

As open and readily re-usable as HTML, images and javascript can be it creates quite a gray area for fair use - my rule of thumb is that if you're not making money off someone else's work you're probably OK. If you don't know, check with the owner - all they can say is "no".

Thanks a lot for that link Rower_CPU, it was/is an interesting read and I've learned a lot from it. I have sent an email off to the site where I wanted to take and change some of their buttons to see what they have to say. Thanks for all the input everyone.

 

[efoto]

I guess this would be a good example of what I am getting at. The entire site is not for word, but the icons are clearly OSX and Apple owned (I assume), and the splash is the basic Panther/Tiger blue background.

Is something like this legitimate or could they get in trouble if Apple really felt like taking it that far? Are the standard icons usable for all purposes?

 

[njmac]

I guess this would be a good example of what I am getting at. The entire site is not for word, but the icons are clearly OSX and Apple owned (I assume), and the splash is the basic Panther/Tiger blue background.

Is something like this legitimate or could they get in trouble if Apple really felt like taking it that far? Are the standard icons usable for all purposes?

I can see how using those icons like that would be wrong. I thought you meant the page style like this one.

That is a Rapid Weaver template. I don't normally use that one though, I just changed it to illustrate what I thought you were talking about.

 

[efoto]

I can see how using those icons like that would be wrong. I thought you meant the page style like this one.

That is a Rapid Weaver template. I don't normally use that one though, I just changed it to illustrate what I thought you were talking about.

That was the initial comment I was making, sites that exactly mimic the Apple homepage and subsequent linked pages with that headline (although I would think .mac sites are immune to this argument since they are essentially Apple's sites that have been personalized by paying users). I was also trying to get at (although I guess I never actually said it) the icons/buttons that sites use as navigation, like the example I linked.

 

[SummerBreeze]

Honestly, if someone used my graphics on their site, I'd be pretty peeved. That said, I have no problem with people using bits of my code when they're figuring out how to create their own websites. There's a fine line between learning from someone else and stealing from someone else, but usually the person lifting code will know when they've crossed it.

 

[efoto]

Honestly, if someone used my graphics on their site, I'd be pretty peeved. That said, I have no problem with people using bits of my code when they're figuring out how to create their own websites. There's a fine line between learning from someone else and stealing from someone else, but usually the person lifting code will know when they've crossed it.

I see your point, but as someone trying to learn how to create sites I can say that the line you mention is thin and nearly transparent.

As clayj stated it is quite hard to realize what is too far when things like "view source" are available on every page I visit, and icons can be grabbed simply by dragging. I'm trying to be moral about this and not completely screw anyone out of hard work or money, that's why I emailed the site I wanted to take icons from to ask permission.

You said you would be peeved it someone took your graphics, what if they put a link to your site and a logo that said "graphics by xxxx"? I'm not saying I'm going to do that, but there are a lot of people who are good people that just don't know how to do it themselves that see flashy graphics and a nice layout and have no problem giving credit but would love to take the design.

After looking on the net a little more I found a few free templates that I downloaded and am in the progress of altering, so hopefully I can make those into something I like eventually. Thanks for all the input thus far, it has been quite enlightening.

 

[CanadaRAM]

There's a difference to viewing source to look at and learn a technique, which is fair, or copping the design, look and feel of someone elses work, which is not.

Copying icon and button files from another site is just stealing. With or without the attribution, (like it would be all right if I put a little plaque on my TV "Stolen with gratitude from M. Sherman of Broadmead Road"?) -- you need the authors permission first.

Get out Photoshop Elements, or Imageready, or Fireworks, and learn how to do it yourself.

 

[yenko]

I have noticed recently a few personal websites and blogs that contain the Apple.com fit and finish, basically they look the exact same with different content and different button names. I was just curious what the legitimacy of taking code from Apple, or anyone else, is for use in a personal website.

This comes down to wanting to make my site look nicer without putting a ton of work into it (due to lack of time/skill). If I happen to take some images (buttons, not stock photos or anything) from a site and use them, am I going to piss people off??

Not trying to judge anyone, but since you threw it out there, I guess it would generate an opinion of one kind or another.

My personal view would be: if it doesn't belong to you and you take it, you're stealing. Asking permission to use something usually works. Just because you don't have the time/skill, doesn't justify the action. The consequence of this could put one through more legal crap than the effort to learn to create your own.
Just my humble opinion.

 

[efoto]

Not trying to judge anyone, but since you threw it out there, I guess it would generate an opinion of one kind or another.

My personal view would be: if it doesn't belong to you and you take it, you're stealing. Asking permission to use something usually works. Just because you don't have the time/skill, doesn't justify the action. The consequence of this could put one through more legal crap than the effort to learn to create your own.
Just my humble opinion.

Right, I was posing the question just to see the answers. Like I said, I wasn't going to do that. I did email and ask the company whose icons I was interested in and I agree with that direction as being the right one when wanting content/design from an existing site. The only reason I asked those questions is because the line is thin and gray and I wanted to see what people had to say about the other "methods", be they right or wrong.

Copying icon and button files from another site is just stealing. With or without the attribution, (like it would be all right if I put a little plaque on my TV "Stolen with gratitude from M. Sherman of Broadmead Road"?) -- you need the authors permission first.

Agreed, hence the email to the site prior to taking their stuff. I was asking just to ask and get responses because I wasn't really sure. The entire web stuff is relatively new to me and I wasn't sure what was acceptable in the business and what was not. I realize that stealing is stealing, but sometimes the theft and alteration of things is not so bad in certain professions/setups. The whole reason I checked was to find out what was acceptable in this place for this type of work. Point taken.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Now HTML code is another thing. I don't see how one can copyright the actual HTML code itself. It's like trying to copyright the English Language.

But that's just it -- you can't copyright English language, but you certainly can copyright a certain arrangement of English words that expresses an idea in a unique way.

"bell", "tolls", "thee", "whom", "ask", "do not", "for", "the", "it" taken individually as words are not an idea. But their combination in a meaningful way is art.

And it is the misappropriation of the unique expression (how the HTML code creates a specific look and feel) that is both the objective, and the problem.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[iMeowbot]

As clayj stated it is quite hard to realize what is too far when things like "view source" are available on every page I visit, and icons can be grabbed simply by dragging. I'm trying to be moral about this and not completely screw anyone out of hard work or money, that's why I emailed the site I wanted to take icons from to ask permission.

This might be a useful analogy, or maybe not. Anyway. You can view the "source" of a book, because that's all there is. The same kinds of rules apply. There's outright plagiarism on one hand, and then there is the very acceptable practice of drawing inspiration from other books you've read when writing your own. It's accepted that you can to borrow a plot twist, a nifty expression or the organization of chapters, but lifting whole paragraphs crosses the line. Treat HTML or programming code in the same spirit and you should be fine (as long as we ignore the whole patent issue, but what you are asking about seems to be steering clear of that morass).

 

[decksnap]

Just don't do it. It is wrong. Even stealing 'just little buttons or icons' is wrong. Those of us who design them know a lot of time, effort, skill and thought go into even these miniscule things. Same goes or code.

Here's a link to some of the more serious rip-offs that happen every day:

Pirated Sites Archive

Pirated Sites Forum