(2012-07-03, 01:50 PM)Zash Wrote: [ -> ]His work isn't under the public domain, he has automatic copyright.
However, unless the copyright was in place when MyBB Turkey installed the theme - there are no requirements for them to put it up. If they download and use a more recent version of your theme where you require a copyright, then they will have to put it. I don't think you can retroactively require a copyright.
Disclaimer: Everything I just said can be wrong.
Actually I believe you're right. Copyright is implied when not explicitly stated.
While yes he would own the theme rights still it doesn't mean they would need to leave the copyright. They just won't be able to claim it as theirs.
The burden of proof (according to US law, assuming the user is in the USA) still falls on the theme developer. And if they live in different countries.. the developer would have to fly to the theme user's court with jurisdiction of the users place of residence, and make a case. All VERY costly with no guarantee of getting any kind of remedy.
Small in short, when dealing with general international copyright issues with website code, just count your losses, write them off, and move on. Intangible assets take A LOT of energy, time, and most of the time... a lofty amount of money to protect. And protection is shoty at best when issue is international. Contrary to popular believe.. the world is not of one government whos soul purpose is to simply protect what you wish.
You can try a cease and desist... but chances are, unless you as the developer have A LOT of money to waste, you probably won't get much in terms of a remedy.
It's better to simply say, "thanks for using my theme, I put a lot of work into it and I'm honored you would use it for your site, you don't have to share that I originally made it but I would be truly grateful if you did so maybe more people would come to me. I hope my work brings you good luck, enjoy."
In my current opinion.. website coding is simply binary in the end. Yes there can be an art to it.. but it's NOT long lasting like a Monet painting, so I believe it doesn't deserve the same merit BUT it does deserve at least a thank you. General website coding seems to have about 5 years max life before becoming completely outdated... let alone theme related coding.
So my message to theme coders, thank you for your wonderful work and sharing it! But stop acting like your theme code is a physical work of art that merits a signature. If you want that kind of recognition.. code something more interesting and lasting that helps A LOT of people.
So that's the end of my rant. I'm sure someone shares a similar opinion.
I don't really agree. Most hosts are located in the USA, or the UK/Europe, which all have decent copyright laws. The best thing to do is determine the host. If they are a USA based host, send a DMCA, if not contact the host (they usually have a policy regarding copyright) and have the website taken down.
The only problem you have is if the host is located somewhere like Sweden. Which can be more work than its worth. Nowadays, you would rarely need money to protect your IP, as there are laws in place to protect you (the owner). Also, unless the infringement is causing you a loss of revenue, you would gain very little even if you did take it to court.
Also, your comment about coding not being anything like a Monet tha simply isn't true. You can't paint a money without some skill, you can't code a good website without skill. The poit about how long it lasts is irrelevant. Some companies only last a few years, so is their content not something they can copyright? Theming is an art, and even if it wasn't, it can still be copyrighted. ANYTHING you make, whether it be a tiny plugin, or a full blown framework, is YOUR IP, and thus can be copyrighted.
"Most hosts are located in the USA, or the UK/Europe" what makes you say this?
"If they are a USA based host, send a DMCA" Do you have any experience "taking down" any website with a DMCA notice for copyright claim concerning a website theme? If so I'd like to see proof. Some legal conditions which may put a monkey wrench in your perception of copyright law:
- Moral rights (where attribution should be given to an artist and protected from some mutilations) which you may be implying to website design has precedence in only tangible goods and not in the intangible. You'd have a hard time in court if going this route.
- According to 17 U.S.C. §12 (U.S. Copyright Law title 17, chapter 12), you need an adequate security measure of protection which would have needed to been circumvented to have a decent case.
Since most website themes DO NOT have (according to precedence) adequate security measures in place it may not qualify for protection under this particular law. This is another common misconception about DMCA.
A fun fact subnote of ch 12: "shall not apply to a nonprofit library, archives, educational institution, or public broadcasting entity."
"Statute of Limitations.—No criminal proceeding shall be brought under this section unless such proceeding is commenced within five years after the cause of action arose."
- According to 17 U.S.C. § 101, 17 U.S.C. § 102, 17 U.S.C. § 103, 17 U.S.C. § 106 concerning works derived from copyrighted work by another party, any alternations made which qualify more than minor alterations or additions of little substance to a preexisting work can be protected as a derivative work. All a person has to do is make substantial changes to a theme to call it their own, and in which case no attribution is required. Regardless of whatever license is attached to the original theme, so long as no adequate security measure is circumvented.
"unless the infringement is causing you a loss of revenue, you would gain very little even if you did take it to court." this is not accurate. Loss of revenue is not the only damages one can sue for, let alone other non-monetary remedies. This is a common misconception about US law.
"not being anything like a Monet tha simply isn't true", "You can't paint a money without some skill" I don't see how this is as logically sound. A real Monet is only painted by Claude Monet (December 1926), skill or no skill if not painted by Claude Monet it is not a Monet. The level of skill, which is ambiguous, is not the merit which the comparison is based on. The comparison I made is on perceived value, which is entirely subjective. And in my comment, subject to my opinion which in that sense I can see and understand your point of view, but we agree to disagree on that view.
Again, to re-iterate, DMCA was created to protect digital media and devices used to read/write such media. For whatever crazy reason, web designers generally think that the web coding they've done is protected under the Digital Millennium copyright Act under any circumstance ... although the work may be copyrighted (if original work or qualifying derivative work), abuse of such work by another party might not be protected under DMCA depending on the circumstances. Many so called DMCA notices sent by designers do not qualify as legal notice and may be disregarded. If a web host makes the decision to remove a customers account based on an invalid claim, they can be easily sued by the customer and be forced by the courts to remedy it. Which could cost the host thousands of dollars. Not to mention the customer who lost a website due to an invalid claim can also sue the party who sent the invalid claim in the first place, regardless of whatever the issue was over. So if you're going to send a "notice" to any web host make damn sure it's valid by checking with a qualified person and/or qualified entity.
The world is filled with many uninformed people who make decisions which in essence just slow down the progression of human civilization. ;D
(2012-07-04, 09:31 PM)GunnerAIO Wrote: [ -> ]"Most hosts are located in the USA, or the UK/Europe" what makes you say this?
"If they are a USA based host, send a DMCA" Do you have any experience "taking down" any website with a DMCA notice for copyright claim concerning a website theme?
No, I personally don't but there are MANY members here who do. For example, Labrocca sends numerous takedowns per month.
Quote:According to 17 U.S.C. §12 (U.S. Copyright Law title 17, chapter 12), you need an adequate security measure of protection which would have needed to been circumvented to have a decent case.
Since most website themes DO NOT have (according to precedence) adequate security measures in place it may not qualify for protection under this particular law. This is another common misconception about DMCA.[/code]
There are no ways to protect PHP code, because it is plaintext. The same goes for javascript, and numerous other languages. However, I'm fairly sure they would be covered by the DMCA - unless the acts just doesn't bother covering 60% of web based software??
[quote]"Statute of Limitations.—No criminal proceeding shall be brought under this section unless such proceeding is commenced within five years after the cause of action arose."
How is this relevant? The DMCA notices are usually sent within a few months when the content is found, I doubt anyone will bother trying to DMCA a 5 year old theme?
Quote:According to 17 U.S.C. § 101, 17 U.S.C. § 102, 17 U.S.C. § 103, 17 U.S.C. § 106 concerning works derived from copyrighted work by another party, any alternations made which qualify more than minor alterations or additions of little substance to a preexisting work can be protected as a derivative work. All a person has to do is make substantial changes to a theme to call it their own, and in which case no attribution is required. Regardless of whatever license is attached to the original theme, so long as no adequate security measure is circumvented.
No, the license would not be disregarded. If the license specifies you must need attribution then that supersedes the DMCA. From that point you would go for any other form of takedown, as it is then a breach of license which surmounts to immediate removal of the content from any reputable host. Also, we're not talking about "substantial" changes, we're talking about simply removing the copyright.
Quote:"unless the infringement is causing you a loss of revenue, you would gain very little even if you did take it to court." this is not accurate. Loss of revenue is not the only damages one can sue for, let alone other non-monetary remedies. This is a common misconception about US law.
What I meant by that was, unless you are going to sue for a substantial sum, there is no point, and nobody would even consider it. It is far easier to just get the content removed and move on.
Quote:"not being anything like a Monet tha simply isn't true", "You can't paint a money without some skill" I don't see how this is as logically sound. A real Monet is only painted by Claude Monet (December 1926), skill or no skill if not painted by Claude Monet it is not a Monet.
Slip of thongue there, I meant you can't paint a great landscape/portrait painting without skill
I know what a Monet is XD
Quote:If a web host makes the decision to remove a customers account based on an invalid claim, they can be easily sued by the customer and be forced by the courts to remedy it. Which could cost the host thousands of dollars. Not to mention the customer who lost a website due to an invalid claim can also sue the party who sent the invalid claim in the first place, regardless of whatever the issue was over. So if you're going to send a "notice" to any web host make damn sure it's valid by checking with a qualified person and/or qualified entity.
Then again this applies to any form of legal takedown notice, not just the DMCA. Also, the DMCA may simply highlight the infringing material on the servers of the web host, of which most hosts would remove as it is a breach of their terms of use. In that case, it doesn't really matter if they DMCA notice is valid or not, as they need not use it to remove the content.
Quote:The world is filled with many uninformed people who make decisions which in essence just slow down the progression of human civilization. ;D
I agree
Feel free to point me out on anything else I mistakenly said
(2012-07-05, 04:56 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]There are no ways to protect PHP code, because it is plaintext. The same goes for javascript, and numerous other languages. However, I'm fairly sure they would be covered by the DMCA - unless the acts just doesn't bother covering 60% of web based software??
Website themes are usually CSS and html and sometime incorporate 3rd party javascript which are not protected.
Many Code Languages can be obfuscated and in some instances encrypted. Although I don't know if obfuscation would qualify as a security measure, encryption does. There are server side protections users can install on dedi and sometimes VPS unless the host already provides the software (forgot the names of the code protection software). The nature of the web itself should be taken into question. As some dumb attornies try to argue that copyright is violated as soon as you connect to a website because the code is downloaded to your device in ram and hard drive. I can not agree with their arguments (that's a whole nother can of worms that branches off from this topic).
(2012-07-05, 04:56 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]How is this relevant? The DMCA notices are usually sent within a few months when the content is found, I doubt anyone will bother trying to DMCA a 5 year old theme?
That's why I labeled it a fun fact.. it's not neccisarily pertinent.
(2012-07-05, 04:56 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]No, the license would not be disregarded. If the license specifies you must need attribution then that supersedes the DMCA. From that point you would go for any other form of takedown, as it is then a breach of license which surmounts to immediate removal of the content from any reputable host. Also, we're not talking about "substantial" changes, we're talking about simply removing the copyright.
Yes you are right... But all someone has to do when substantial changes are made is claim that it is their original code. Unless the perp is stupid and leaves the original coders handle in the code.. otherwise you'd have to prove it's not their code... and that's near impossible if the right steps are taken.
(2012-07-05, 04:56 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]Then again this applies to any form of legal takedown notice, not just the DMCA. Also, the DMCA may simply highlight the infringing material on the servers of the web host, of which most hosts would remove as it is a breach of their terms of use. In that case, it doesn't really matter if they DMCA notice is valid or not, as they need not use it to remove the content.
I don't think you completely understand my explanation of DMCA.. the DMCA doesn't blatantly cover unprotected web site code such as css, html, and javascript from my discoveries. Read the act and the associated laws.
People who send "DMCA" notices for theme code infringement are improperly using the term DMCA notice. It's simply a copyright violation. Not a violation of the DMCA. That misconception should be corrected, but as we agree.... misinformed people making misinformed decisions don't help the progression of society.
You're a good sport Tom K. I've enjoyed this conversation.
Regarding the licenses issue. If the license strictly prohibits redistribution then the user would have to modify a significant proportion of the code in order to claim it is original, a simple diff merge would show the similarities. If it was taken to court, I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to get it removed unless there were substantial edits.
Also, regarding obfuscation and encryption. Obfuscating PHP would not be a "reasonable security measure" because you would simply be changing variable and function names - of a plain text source. Encryption is almost never a viable option for most as it requires a server side decryption program (Ioncube and Zend Guard for example).