phpbbmodders ripped?

[Kamahl]

but that mad dont steal any images he didnt do anythink illegal.

[House]

Semi, just remember that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

But it shouldn't be used as an excuse to steal someones work.

I never said it was.. In fact I was joking, almost, but sorry anyway.

Did they actually steal images/code? In that case, send an email.

---000---

but that mad dont steal any images he didnt do anythink illegal.

I don't suspect legality is the real issue here.

[Ganon_Master]

but that mad dont steal any images he didnt do anythink illegal.

I could copy this style entirely without changing anything and still say that I "by chance" placed certain pixels thesame. But still the colors, arrangement and visual appearance matches exactly. That's the thing.

[harmlessgoat22]

This is obviously immoral what they are doing, but is there a legality issue with reproducing a style if they didn't steal images or code?

[Semi_Deus]

This is obviously immoral what they are doing, but is there a legality issue with reproducing a style if they didn't steal images or code?

Copyright also includes trying to recreate an exact same thing, yes.

[harmlessgoat22]

Can they really do that? I didn't think that a copyright can say you can't try to recreate it...

[Mr. Bond]

I'm pretty sure you can create something similar, but you can't use code/images from the copyrighted design...?

Example, phpBB.com style => Progrey (and the many other reproductions that were created before they finally released it)

[harmlessgoat22]

Yes, that was my belief. You can make it the exact same, if you like, as long as you don't use any of the same images, as long as you make your own images.

[momentum]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

They could have copied someone else's board, but apparently liked this one.

Craig.

[harmlessgoat22]

I believe someone mentioned that before, and it should be taken as both a compliment and an insult - a compliment that they liked it enough to copy it, an insult that they didn't think it important enough to ask phpBBModder's permission.

[CMCDragonkai]

I remember that Cadbury once took another company or was it a store to court because they were using the color "purple". Obviously cadbury thought they could sue on that.

However the judge voted on the store's favor. Told them they can't copyright something that broad as a color.

However copyright laws vary between countries. So on the internet, that's even harder. What if that website was hosted in North Korea? They wouldn't even bother replying to your email if you were in US.

Breach of copyright is determined by these factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[10]
5. Educational use is regarded as "fair use" in most jurisdictions, but the restrictions vary wildly from nation to nation.

Another thing, is whether their using it for commercial purposes. And even then, that depends on the quantity or "completeness" of the work.

In some countries such most commonwealth, personal use is permissible unless of course such use is commercialized. And also depends on the quantity or "completeness" of the work.

My opinion:

3/4 Morally they have breached copyright.
1/4 Morally they haven't cause they simply made it them selves and imitated it. Plus it's kinda educational anyhow.
80% Legally why bother? It's not commercialized, plus it doesn't even rival you in marketshare. Example: Microsoft won't sue a 10 year old for taking their logo and using it for his soda store.

P.S. You'd probably win if you did take them to court, but the system loses.

[House]

I remember that Cadbury once took another company or was it a store to court because they were using the color "purple". Obviously cadbury thought they could sue on that.

However the judge voted on the store's favor. Told them they can't copyright something that broad as a color.

However copyright laws vary between countries. So on the internet, that's even harder. What if that website was hosted in North Korea? They wouldn't even bother replying to your email if you were in US.

Breach of copyright is determined by these factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[10]
5. Educational use is regarded as "fair use" in most jurisdictions, but the restrictions vary wildly from nation to nation.

Another thing, is whether their using it for commercial purposes. And even then, that depends on the quantity or "completeness" of the work.

In some countries such most commonwealth, personal use is permissible unless of course such use is commercialized. And also depends on the quantity or "completeness" of the work.

My opinion:

3/4 Morally they have breached copyright.
1/4 Morally they haven't cause they simply made it them selves and imitated it. Plus it's kinda educational anyhow.
80% Legally why bother? It's not commercialized, plus it doesn't even rival you in marketshare. Example: Microsoft won't sue a 10 year old for taking their logo and using it for his soda store.

P.S. You'd probably win if you did take them to court, but the system loses.

and

I don't suspect legality is the real issue here.

Again.. But it's more like just the point of it that's bothersome here. There has always been a more or less code of conduct online about these things. Webmasters don't rip others' work, and if they did, they sure as hell better not try and represent it as an original inspiration. You just don't; that's something to be left to scriptkiddies, in which case they aren't even competition, but merely annoying.

Likewise (although a bit offtopic), you can judge an author by his credit line (how restrictive is the license; how many times is his name mentioned; are there more comments than actual code). So is it legal or illegal? Who can say for sure; it's certainly not worth pressing charges to all the people who imitate or even steal it, either way.

Yet, there is something to be said about individuality. - Which is what they're really stealing, and is what's actually offensive.

---
And you know, being the open source lovers we are, it's not really an *easy thing* to be unique.. Or actually, on the web period. It's hard out here for an admin! /me Banstick's(tm) a n00b and roles doubles.

[CMCDragonkai]

So has anyone sent them an email yet?

[Semi_Deus]

No, because it is such a lame copy, we decided he could keep it

Anyways, copyright is not a rule for itself. Every creator/author has the right to create his own copyright rules (for his creations only). So as in the phpbb.com / progrey thing, phpbb.com has decided that they would allow that. What I do not understand about phpbb.com is that I made an exact same style as progrey, looong before progrey, and they didn't allow that one.

But to get back on phpbbmodders.net. We have decided that no-one may copy or recreate our style. However, since that site did such a bad job we can't really sue him for that, and i'm not even sure if we would, since it involves so much trouble. But any better recreations are prohibited. code copy is fine. Image copy is strictly prohibited, and not allowed in anyway, unless [url=http://phpbbmodders.net/board/ucp.php?mode=terms]we[/url] say different.

[Tom@S]

my site is not copying this style, it is only inspirated by it, grafic make his own css and html files, his own logo and images, nothing is copyied only idea, i think about i will add someting like this style is based on blablal, but i want less text in footer that is possible