[dharmesh]

Originally posted by nrg
You can definately copyright protect code, freqU. According to your logic, it should be impossible to protect the logo's I created with Illustrator or Photoshop, cause it's a result of using that software (that I not own fyi, I have a lisence to use it, most people think they OWN software).

Copyright is most of the time all about Intellectual Property, meaning you developed your own method to achief something which results in a piece of code, graphics, soundtrack, movie whatever. You basicly use Photoshop or a language as a tool to achief your 'end-result'.

If your work (and thus end-result) is unique (that's the keyword here), you can easely protect it.

Well I remember there was a chapter on that stuff . Let me get my notes.

Computer-generated works and computer-aided design is the chapter.

Here goes:

ahamm aahaam

Referring to the Act (UK) :

Computer-generated is defined by the Act as a work "generated by a computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work"

The author of a computer-generated work is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.

The author of a computer-aided work (design a boat or car) is the person who designs the work with tha aid of the computer but under Section 178 if the work is computer-generated, author may well be the person who loads the program and enables the computer to function, example the programmer.

This will undoubtedly be the subject of litigation as Act is loosely drafted and ambiguous.

I feel like am a lawyer

[carapau]

Frequ:
Like nrg points out, what you're saying would also lead to:
1) no intelectual property in written works, because languages are "opensource";
2) no intelectual property in fine-arts, because oil paints, watercolours, stone, bronze, etc are all "opensource";
3) no intelectual property in music, because music notes are "opensource";
4) no intelectual property in architecture, because bricks are "opensource";
5) no intelectual property in cinema or photography, because light and silver nitrate are "opensource";
6) (...)

Let me make myself clear: intelectual property means the expression of an idea you have developed is the work of your intelect and you own the right to use it. If others want to use your creation they should pay for your work. If you let people rip you off, then it's your problem (just don't expect others to act the same way).
Of course there are limitations imposed by common sense: don't expect me to find a plain HTML table a copyright-protected work of someone's intelectual. The issue with software has to do with algorithms. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it"

I stressed the term expression of an idea because you can't own the rights to an idea in itself. Ideas roam freely. it's what you do with those ideas that's your own work.

This leads us to another interesting and closely related subject: the dreaded software patents. Software patents are a completely different creature, because patents offices (spe. in the US) are known for loose descriptions of software features to be filled as patents. This is the reason of the death of the GIF image, because those AOL dumbasses owned the patent and where actually trying to charge people for using GIFs!
To those who don't know what I'm talking about go to http://petition.eurolinux.org for more information on software patents and the upcoming EU decision on this.

[carapau]

I would also like to point out that the title for this thread is "Web Piracy" and traditionally the term "piracy" is used to denote infringement of publishing rights. These are two different issues: one thing is someone ripping off your intelectual property and "twisting" it for his/her own purposes; another is publishing your work without your prior consent.

[dharmesh]

Originally posted by carapau
Frequ:
Like nrg points out, what you're saying would also lead to:
1) no intelectual property in written works, because languages are "opensource";
2) no intelectual property in fine-arts, because oil paints, watercolours, stone, bronze, etc are all "opensource";
3) no intelectual property in music, because music notes are "opensource";
4) no intelectual property in architecture, because bricks are "opensource";
5) no intelectual property in cinema or photography, because light and silver nitrate are "opensource";
6) (...)

Let me make myself clear: intelectual property means the expression of an idea you have developed is the work of your intelect and you own the right to use it. If others want to use your creation they should pay for your work. If you let people rip you off, then it's your problem (just don't expect others to act the same way).
Of course there are limitations imposed by common sense: don't expect me to find a plain HTML table a copyright-protected work of someone's intelectual. The issue with software has to do with algorithms. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it"

Software patents are a completely different creature, because patents offices (spe. in the US) are known for loose descriptions of software features to be filled as patents. This is the reason of the death of the GIF image, because those AOL dumbasses owned the patent and where actually trying to charge people for using GIFs!

I don't know how you understood it but I didn't mean what you said above. Read my post thoroughly and you will see. If you do not understand, let me know

I'm not saying anything like that. But it is the law which has some controversy in it like the example I gave above. I don't about the US law because in my course we dealt with UK law

[dharmesh]

Originally posted by carapau
I would also like to point out that the title for this thread is "Web Piracy" and traditionally the term "piracy" is used to denote infringement of publishing rights. These are two different issues: one thing is someone ripping off your intelectual property and "twisting" it for his/her own purposes; another is publishing your work without your prior consent.

Oh excusez moi alors Monsieur

[carapau]

dharmesh: I was replying to Frequ, not to you. You simply pointed out some legal issues that have no contend.

au revoir, et à plutôt!

[dharmesh]

Originally posted by carapau
dharmesh: I was replying to Frequ, not to you. You simply pointed out some legal issues that have no contend.

au revoir, et à plutôt!

A plutard, tu veux dire . Je m'excuse. Please accept my apologies. I thought you were replying to me.

[freqU]

thats not my logic at all...........logos, movies, music are all unique elements in their visual or auditory presence......

your confusing the difference between drawing an image or recording a sound using computer software with telling a computer to perform a function using a computer language..........

look at it this way...........what came first Photoshop or CorelDraw........in your logic, whoever did has a legal right to tell the other they can't have their software because essentially it does the same thing....but merely has a different interface..........but having a different interface is the key factor.......its what prevents them from breaking a copyright law...........both programs are written using the same language in which many instances in the script the coding is identical.......

my example is this........i am viewing a website one day and come across a flash site that has an icon randomingly moving in simulated 3D movements or what not........i decide that this element may prove useful for myself......but i don't know how to write that script........there is nothing that prevents me from reusing that script as long as in the end, i am not using the same icon/graphic and using it in the same graphical presence......but i can use the script to perform this function in my own visual manner because the script is an open source language........

the point is that to achieve this effect i have to write that script regardless of whether i write it from scratch or use an existing script someone else has already created because the means to achieve that result is going to be the same with at the most a subtle difference.....usually being syntax changes

[freqU]

Originally posted by carapau
Frequ:
Like nrg points out, what you're saying would also lead to:
1) no intelectual property in written works, because languages are "opensource";
2) no intelectual property in fine-arts, because oil paints, watercolours, stone, bronze, etc are all "opensource";
3) no intelectual property in music, because music notes are "opensource";
4) no intelectual property in architecture, because bricks are "opensource";
5) no intelectual property in cinema or photography, because light and silver nitrate are "opensource";
6) (...)

You can't compare a computer language to the English/French/Italian languages etc. Computer languages are structured so that they have to be used in a specific manner/syntax so that they do what you are asking them to do. The english language is limitless and has no boundaries on how I use it except that if I want to spell the word "ENTER" in english, that is the only way to spell it etc.

As for painting, I am taught technique on how to use a Fan Brush or Stipple Brush, but when I paint there is no concrete undeterrable way to use them.....the options are limitless.......

The same rings true for music......I am taught scales and chords.......but there is limitless ways to arrange them and no guidelines that I can't break......

The same for architecture and photography too etc...

That is why you break copyrights when you are using those medias or mediums.....because there is infinate ways to use them to create original work and you have no excuse for copying someone elses work.......

But when I write a computer script......the line that I walk is very narrow and has very little room to stray from.........it is concrete and predefined.......

[carapau]

freqU:
I hate to say this, but you're either clueless or hopeless.
I still have some hope, so here's some facts for you to think about.
Let's start with the basics:
1) Your comments on my metaphores are completely off the mark. Last time I checked there are semantics, syntax, and vocabulary in every human language (maybe you haven't reached that grade in school). And if you want to publish music, you'll have to write it down in proper notation... Try your "endless possibilities" in architecture or in sculpture and your works of art will crumble to pieces. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and those "endless possibilities" in art sound to me like those paintings done by cats and monkeys.
2) If computer programming is such a barren landscape through which you have no alternate paths to walk on nor a place where you can in any way express your personal ideas, why is it that some people can write code that "simulate 3D movements" but you can't? Aren't these people using the exact same "limited" programming languages as you? And if someone was able to look at a problem and reach a solution by his/her own, what gives you the right to use his/her work? What's limited after all? It seems to me that in your case it's the operator and not the computer language.

Maybe you're trying to say that you can freely copy other people's scripts because scripts are only a bunch of pre-defined statements like "for" and "while" loops, etc.
Well... maybe that's only what scripts are for those who can't code and don't have a clue about what they're looking at.
Don't you see that's exactly the same as reading "The Lord of Rings" and saying to yourself "Well, this is nice. I could use this for my profit, it's only a bunch of English words, anyway".

I changed my mind. The little hope I had left was consumed in the previous pragraphs... I really don't know why I'm wasting my time on someone who thinks the difference between Photoshop and CorelDraw is the way the interface looks... (geezzuuss...)

Just remember that there are laws against intellectual property theft and not knowing the law isn't an excuse to brake it.

[freqU]

what are you even talking about.......my comments on your metaphores are completely on the mark........calling me clueless......or hopeless.........i can see you have decided to turn this into a personal attack........have fun..........

you can't even begin to see what my point is and maybe its because you don't care too.................

maybe your just pissed because someone has stolen something from you in the past...........

regardless............

i think you'll find that your laws against intellectual property have very very thin walls and 98% of the time won't stand up in a court of law.............i can attest to that personally.........

[carapau]

My point is that software is as much an intellectual work as any other expression of the mind of a human being, and thus it is only logical that it be protected by copyright laws. My previous post isn't a personal attack, it's just a reaction to some of the views you expressed which I find clumsy, to say the least.
I'm not pissed about anything. And, to my knowledge, my work hasn't been stolen by anyone. I'm not having that much fun, nor I use to make fun of other people.
What I want to stress is:
1) A computer program is a work of the human mind, though not being art, similar to a novel, a film script, a simphony, etc, in the aspect that it has no physical existence — it has to be rendered / fixated into an apropriate medium. This is one of the reasons why it is considered intellectual property.
2) Copyright laws worldwide exist in order to protect intellectual property because of this 'volatile' nature of the intellectual work.

This is how it is, regardless of what you or me or anyone else thinks.
In a perfect world maybe there wouldn't be the need for property altogether, nor for courts or laws, but that's how it is.

[sixtailer]

I've been inspired to rip ultrashock. say hello to "www.superzap.com" coming soon. J/k well written article.

[----j]

thanx for info better put a CopyWritte crap on my site

[Komodo]

Speaking from someone who has been on both sides of the fence, both the ripper-offer (in my younger days) and having been ripped off myself, i can say that both feel pretty bad.

Ripping off or getting toooo much inspiration from someone's site does not do your own design credibility any good, as well as removing any respect you 'should' have for the company you are copying.

As a designer now... if you decide to make your work very public and market it well, you always have to be on-guard for people rippin off your stuff.

Communities like Ultrashock are brilliant for combatting this type of thing. I have received numerous emails in the past from fellow members of ultrashock, flashkit etc. letting me know if my site's are appearing under other names elsewhere on the web

[Usability-]

But then you get the occasional coincidence. mediaRAIN, the company I work for, recently found its logo in the database of a custom logo company it was affiliated with. The logo was so close it was uncanny when we learned, beyond any doubt, there was no possible way it could have been stolen from either party.

I think with the inumerable amount of stuff on the web you have to concede that just about everything has been done before. Or if it hasn't it will be soon, cause if I don't find something not already done I'll get in trouble. In fact, we should have some sort of game here on Ultrashock. We should get some designs up that are "completely original" by some volunteers and then see if anyone can find anything that looks like it. It could go far to prove, one way or another, if making something truly original is possible. Just a thought.

do it in FLASH - to avoid piracy

You should take it as a COMPLIMENT if somebody RIPS-OFF your work!

So, if no one has ever ripped off your work, that means YOU SUCK! ?

Im sorry, I dont want to downgrade the quality of this thread because it was a very good read and very informative - but I just have to counter this comment because it seems that the person who made said it, must think that the designer of suicidegirls.com DOESNT suck. Unless he has permission to use their photographs on his "phone talk" mock-up site....those are stolen.

Good way to show them they DONT suck - Steal their photos.

[princeratt]

Designers are always in tension of stisfying clients and I can bet there is no single designer in this world who has not copied of anyones style in degining or somepoint in career. It is natural faze when we learn something we learn by seeing people who know this. I copied sites of 2advanced in learning faze But Not anyome I have started creating my own designs. But copying 100% design is bad thing and designer should avoid making such mistakes.

[HelgaValerie]

Intellectual property is extremely hard to count and protect. Information is non-material, and I guess people need to develop a new attitude to information and create new laws. Though, i think, not on this stage: we will have to wait for decades until we are ready to do this

[WeynandTraining]

Fantastic interview! A lot of great info.