Copyright with websites

Peño said:
I'm not going to get into the legality of what you're doing because I am not trained in law, but you pretty much have a carbon copy of the other site.

Layout, structure, colour palette, rollover images, Hell.. even the background gradient!

In fact the only significant differences I can see are your objects have rounded edges..

But like I said, I'm not going to comment on the legality of it. :p
Click to expand...
Thats cos hes using the same theme, which they both bought....
 
The fact that you have intentionally used the same template he did is quite lame.

That said, because it is a template anyone can purchase, he can't do a thing to you.
At most, if the agreement with the template provider stated that he was purchasing exclusive rights to the template, he can go after the creator, not you.
 
Peño said:
I'm not going to get into the legality of what you're doing because I am not trained in law, but you pretty much have a carbon copy of the other site.

Layout, structure, colour palette, rollover images, Hell.. even the background gradient!

In fact the only significant differences I can see are your objects have rounded edges..

But like I said, I'm not going to comment on the legality of it. :p
Click to expand...


and why did you just say what you see, its not ******* catchphrase

opinion?

its obvious to me and has already been pointed out that both of you bought the same template, if it wasnt sold to either of you with exclusive rights then theres not a problem.
 
I know it's a template.

And I did read the thread before I posted.

The fact that they are both computer hardware review websites using exactly the same template bar a logo change is not a coincidence.
 
Since we haven't yet seen Mr Lin or fini, I'll give you a simple legal answer with the caveat that I haven't done any real study for a while. In any case such as this you need to see if it could be covered by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (it should automatically go to the covered works) and essentially it doesn't really seem to fit into any of the categories because I doubt you could claim that there is sufficient originality in the layout or content for it to constitute an original literary work, the rest of the categories are even less suitable, except perhaps for that of a published edition where it may just constitute a typographical arrangement but that would be doubtful.

Since it fails the first test (that of being covered by the Act) there isn't too much point in continuing the analysis. He may have a better case if he is going to claim the old offence of "passing off" but he'd need to prove that there was goodwill in his website design, that you were misreprenting your website as his and finally that you were damaging the goodwill.

That's the legal side, morally I'm less than convinced it is good to have something so similar but they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
 
peterattheboro said:
Aruffell... how have you got the funding already to be able to give away prizes on what looks like a not very successful site?

Is this coming out of your pocket to get more hits? If so, brave man.
Click to expand...

Our dear OP doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to rational decisions regarding money... or anything for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom