Copywrite on Websites
Alan Terry
I know we're not all IT people in here, but I wonder how those that are
involved in websites deal with copyright issues.
For example, assume A is the Client with an existing website, B is the
company that wrote the original site and C is my company:
1. If no-one has explicitly claimed the copyright of the original site,
who owns it by default?
2. If all copyright associated with the site lies with B, then:
(a) what changes/additions can A make to the site without B's
permission?
(b) what changes/additions can C make to the site when providing a
service to A and without B's permission?
3. How in practical terms should changes be achieved?
- Can any of the original code be left in place (eg if A just wants C to
update the text or add a new page in the style of the originals)?
- Where there is a general overhaul of the site can any of the original
code be copied (eg to keep the same navigation buttons)?
- etc !!!
Many thanks,
--
Alan ............
Don Carter
remains with the client who pays for the work unless the contract
specifically states otherwise, but that the actual author has the
right to be identified as such.
Don Carter
CTO
Magnumresources Ltd
The return email address will not be viewed to email my name is don, and my domain is magnumresources in the .co.uk TLD
Unless specifically stated, opinions are those of the author and not of the company.
Peter Russell
I dare say the situation is more complex than this but copyright rests
with the author unless there is a contract to the contrary.
An important condition is that any work done as an employee is the
property of the employer.
Whether the developer's ownership of copyright will have any bearing on
anything you are planning to do is another question. The starting
point would seem to be 'Does the original company care'?
Regards
Peter Russell
In article <gagoruo9qd4sj0vp9...@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley
<al...@successful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>For example, assume A is the Client with an existing website, B is the
>company that wrote the original site and C is my company:
>
>1. If no-one has explicitly claimed the copyright of the original site,
>who owns it by default?
Could be either A or B - it depends on the contract under which the
work was done.
This isn't a matter of copyright law - it's a problem for contract
law. Copyright is quite clear on this matter, the default behaviour
would be B, but in cases of "employment" or "work for hire" then it
would be A. The difficulty is in determining what B's relation to A
had been.
Neither A nor B has behaved in a particularly competent manner (in
either of their interests) if this copyright is still unclear.
Hopefully they were a bit better at stating the terms of engagement.
I suggest a copy of Bainbridge's "Introduction to Computer Law"
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0582423341/codesmiths>
It's a good general text on IT-related law issues, for non-lawyers and
students. It's also updated regularly, so it tracks 'net issues pretty
well.
>2. If all copyright associated with the site lies with B, then:
>
>(a) what changes/additions can A make to the site without B's
>permission?
B's _copyright_ makes no constraint on anything that A does with the
site.
There may be further issues however, but these aren't strictly
copyright.
What was the licence from B to A ? If B retained copyright on the
site, then A has no implied licence to use it, even though A gave them
money. Only if B granted them a licence to do so can A actually use
the site they've "bought and paid for". So presumably there is a
licence somewhere around - what does it say ? Does it impose any
specific restrictions on what A might do to B's site ? If these
restrictions are valid (and this is a complex matter in contract law)
then they could limit things.
If there is no written licence, then a licence might be assumed (the
concept of beneficial ownership) from the fact that A contracted to
pay B money for some assumed service (this could turn into a court
wrangle). This would not limit anything A later chose to do.
If B was an employee (for copyright purposes) of A, then licensing
becomes much simpler and in A's favour.
B's moral rights may limit A's ability to change the site in a way
that removes B's credit as having authored the site, or is offensive
or damaging to B's reputation (introducing bugs in a way that implies
B authored them).
B's moral rights may be assumed to reside with B, as they are less
easily transferred than copyright and in this case I'm assuming you
have no written agreements at all.
Moral rights may not apply at all, because they don't apply (fully) to
computer programs, nor to computer-generated works. Like most
copyright issues, HTML is clearly a "literary work" for copyright, but
some later law applies specific behaviours to "computer programs".My
opinion as an engineer is that HTML is a markup language not a
programming language (although data dictionaries would be). My opinion
on legal matters are that this is as yet untested, and a good brief
cold probably win a case in favour of them being regarded as computer
programs. It's also unclear (legally) as to whether the output of CGI
would be a literary work, not because it's automatic (automatically
generated output is the copyright of the controller of the computer),
but because it's not written down or recorded.
Moral rights do not imply any requirement for A to display a visible
banner or embedded message mentioning B. If B wants an advertisement,
then they must specifically include such in their contract.
Design rights may also limit what A can do with B's work. They're not
copyrights, but related. They relate to the "look and feel" of the
site, rather than to the "expression", as copyrights do. Again, these
should have been clearly transferred by the original contract.
Design rights must be original and not commonplace. A logo designed
for a client will probably be covered, a menu structure will almost
certainly not be, as it will be close to that of many other sites. An
innovative site navigation feature invented by B would have a design
right, but it will lose this right where it applies to A's site if B
are also using it with sites for D, E or F.
Confidences may also apply. These will typically relate to back-end
code that is the original work of B, but not original to A's site. B
may grant a licence (or an assumed licence) for B to see such code for
the purposes of installing and maintaining their site, but this does
not extend to allowing C to see it as well. This may be covered if the
original agreement permitted A's agents to act on their behalf, and C
is sufficiently close to A to be so termed.
>(b) what changes/additions can C make to the site when providing a
>service to A and without B's permission?
As for A.
There may be issues where an exclusive licence to A (particularly
regarding confidences) doesn't extend to C.
>3. How in practical terms should changes be achieved?
>
>- Can any of the original code be left in place (eg if A just wants C to
>update the text or add a new page in the style of the originals)?
Hack and slay. Copyright doesn't limit what A (or A's agent, C) can
do to B's work.
If B wants to avoid this happening, then they need to state so
explicitly in their original licence. In this case it appears that
they didn't.
>- Where there is a general overhaul of the site can any of the original
>code be copied (eg to keep the same navigation buttons)?
In general, copyright of a web site is divisible. There is a separate
copyright applying to images, HTML code, server CGI code, etc. These
are fungible - if the licensing of the images permits their use (maybe
they came from a clip-art library), then you can still use the same
images with new HTML, even if there is no ongoing licence for that
HTML and you must stop using it.
There may be a design right on any of these items though, particularly
for distinctive and original graphics work.
IANAL - I like it that way.
Jason Clark
http://www.newagemrkt.com/
Code stealing does happen online. When I first started out creating my
own web sites I would copy people's code to study it. While I wasn't
using the code on the web, I did steal it. I picked it apart, testing
each tag and seeing what it did until I finally understood it well
enough to create it on my own. I didn't use the code I took online,
but people do.
Here's a Fact: Everything you create, once created, is copyrighted
material. When you load it to the web, it's copyrighted. Always tell
people about the copyright and unless you want people to use your
information or code etc...make sure to add a clause letting people
know it is against the law to take any image, HTML code, or
information and use it in anyway shape or form. Otherwise people will
take it.
What's the harm if they just use my code?
Nothing really I guess, but these same people will also steal your
images, text, phrases, etc. Some of which you paid good money for.
Besides, unless they ask you if they can use it, it's illegal.
I've found several ways to encrypt your HTML code and stop less
knowledgeable about HTML from stealing it. I put my favorite method
into use on the home page of the Inner Sanctum. If you go to
InnerSanctumEletter.com and view the source you'll see it in action.
What I like about this method is, unless they are hell bent to get my
code most people won't take the time or trouble to decrypt it. What I
like most is you can turn any HTML code and encrypt it like this for
free.
Visit http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/encrypter.htm
There you will find a free way to encrypt your HTML code. Just copy
and paste in to the field provided, press the, "Encrypt" button and
bingo! Stealing sucks and those you do it only prosper for a
millisecond before the universe catches them, making them pay the
price for their misdeed.
I mentioned another way of stopping code theft. While not as secure as
the above method it does work quite well. Stopping people from using
the "Right click" on their mouse is what I'm referring to. You can
copy and paste the following java script in to the head tags of the
pages you want to protect. When someone tries to right click on your
page it won't let them.
<script language="JAVASCRIPT" type="TEXT/JAVASCRIPT">
<!--
var message="\n(C) Copyright 2002. All Rights Reserved. \n\n
Tisk, tisk...Do not steal this ad copy or make illegal copies of this
site!\n";
function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
</script>
Sorry if I didn't answer your question correctly.....it's been a long
day.
Jason Clark
--
P.S.
Tired of your phone company ripping you off?
Wipe the smile off their faces at:
www.suffolkwealthbuilders.com
(My I.D 010716512)
ja...@suffolkwealthbuilders.com
Tel: 01394 389088
Alan Terry
<use...@mpreston.demon.co.uk> writes<snip>
>>- Where there is a general overhaul of the site can any of the original
>>code be copied (eg to keep the same navigation buttons)?
>Not without permission. But then again, why would you need to actually
>copy it?
There may be several aspects that are better to keep in place to
maintain the branding.
A simple example would be navigation buttons or backgrounds.
--
Alan ............