Timeline for Am I being ethical or annoying in refusing to 1:1 copy another company's UI for our own?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 8, 2020 at 1:48 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @NathanGoings If I told you "listen to Got To Give It Up and make a song similar to it", you could take nothing concrete from Got to Give It Up and still be found to be infringing. That's what happened in the Blurred Lines case. The songs were deemed too similar and thus the newer song deemed to have elements of protectable expression from the original. This is what the OP is being asked to do -- make a similar work. Does the OP know how similar is too similar? Robin Thicke didn't. | |
| Feb 8, 2020 at 1:47 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @NathanGoings In this case, the OP is being given access to a work and being directed to create a work similar to that work. If he makes his work similar by using elements of expression in the original work that are protectable under copyright law, then his work will be a derivative work and thus infringing. Unless the OP is a legal expert, there is pretty much no way he can know what design elements he can take from the original work without having taken sufficient protectable expression to render his work derivative and thus infringing. He would be violating copyright law by making it. | |
| Feb 8, 2020 at 1:45 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @NathanGoings You are using legal terms in a very odd way. Something can be both created from scratch and be a derivative work. Something is a "derivative work" if it contains elements of protectable expression from some other work. Yes, a court will use the term "derivative work" to refer to an infringing work, but that just means it is similar to the original work in the sense that is has creative elements also in that work. That doesn't mean it wasn't created from scratch. I can write a song from scratch and if it's similar to yours, those similarities can be found to be protectable. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:48 | comment | added | Nathan Goings | @DavidSchwartz, the Blurred Lines case was not that it was deemed too similar. It was deemed a derivative work. Regardless of what actually happened (whether it was created from scratch or a derivative work) the court decided it was infringement, thus declaring it a derivative work and awarding damages. In a defense situation, I would expect there would be evidence indicating infringement. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:28 | comment | added | Nathan Goings | @Dan, You can only copyright a new work. Generally auto-complete or search bars are not created new. However, if I write one from scratch, I can copyright the code with a restricted license and then enforce my copyright. Additionally, if someone steals my website code for theirs they have created an unlicensed derivative—infringing my work. On the other hand, I can't copyright wordpress, only my expression of it. So if someone else uses wordpress I have no legitimate claim against them unless I can prove they copied from my site. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:26 | comment | added | Donald | Yeah; Well if you use copyrighted images then you have infringed on copyrighted material. The software behavior cannot be protected, I am aware of no country, that provides protection for that. This is the reason Oracle lost their case against Google when they sued for infringement with regards to Android’s Java VM. IBM in the 80s also found if someone in a dark room recreates your work, without using your work to do it, they don’t own your work nor does your work infringe on their work | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:21 | comment | added | Nathan Goings | @Donald, you are missing a distinction. If I were to create "Ultimate Bario" without referencing another work then it's a new work not a derivative. However, if I used another work as reference then it would be considered a derivative unless you removed all protected content. In OPs case, he was asked to copy 1:1 which would include copyright protected content. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 18:07 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @NathanGoings The point is that Blurred Lines was deemed to be too similar to another work. It was, however, created from scratch. It is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement that you had no access to the original work. But otherwise, if your work is similar, you are in trouble. That it was created "from scratch" is simply not a defense. Here, the OP is being asked to create a similar work and he has access to the original work, that's how he knows what it's supposed to be similar to. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:58 | comment | added | Nathan Goings | @DavidSchwartz, Sorry, plagiarize was a bad word. The claim is that it was a derivative work. A derivative work without a license is infringement... That all fits in my above answer. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:53 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @NathanGoings That might have been the claim, but that claim is not necessary to a claim of copyright infringement. For example, I can re-write the Star Wars story entirely in my own words with attribution and it's definitely not plagiarism, but it's still copyright infringement because copyright can protect things like characters and settings. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:50 | history | edited | Nathan Goings | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Legal disclaimer
|
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:47 | comment | added | Nathan Goings | @DavidSchwartz, I'll work on clarifying that comment. With "Blurred Lines" it was a claim that the authors plagiarized their work. One of the authors even claimed it was based on the plagiarized work. The claim was it was a derivative work, not a from scratch production that happened to match. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 17:38 | comment | added | Dan | I feel this answer should say you are not a lawyer. If everything in this answer is true, then pretty much every website owner can be sued by someone else. If you have a search bar, auto complete feature, or even offer similar price packages then you can be sued and they'd win.That is false. A software developer can argue the feature makes it easier for their customers and that all of the code is their own, not copied. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 2:24 | comment | added | Donald | This answer is potentially false. US courts decisions have indicated that a company can make something like “Super Mario Brothers” and as long as the artwork isn’t being infringed upon, a game which is identical called “Ultimate Bario” could be created. Unless the images from the competitors website is being used infringement likely isn’t happening. (Trademarks are also a consideration in my example). The gameplay cannot be copyrighted. Likewise the functionality of a calculator cannot be copyrighted. Artwork could be protected. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 1:47 | comment | added | David Schwartz | "Creating a work from scratch, that is similar—in part or in whole—to another work, is not copyright infringement—but could be patent infringement." Huh? It absolutely is. See, for example, the copyright infringement case over the song "Blurred Lines". | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 1:10 | history | answered | Nathan Goings | CC BY-SA 4.0 |