Adrian Tribe wrote:
>
> The two sites mentioned below were both constructed using FrontPage,
> presumably based on a pre-designed template ("theme"?) supplied
> with the software. This is of course becoming very common, so I
> don't see that the individual companies have any copyright claim over
> the layout - if anyone does it would (in this case) be Micro$oft.
> If the software vendors explicitly state that their pre-designed
> templates are freely available for use then anyone using that product
> to construct their pages can't surely claim copyright protection
> for them?
Yes, but...
the large 'eweb' logo in the top left of the page is *clearly* Elonex's (try
clicking it in each instance) and on the Golden valley page there are lots
of missing GIFS (small grey squares). Try viewing the missing image and it's
in a directory called "/images/" - something which matches the corresponding
grey GIF on Eleonex's site. I'm aware this may be a Frontpage standard
directory, don't know though.
I was going to mention templates et al in the original posting as, yes, they
will lead to standard sites (e.g. look at the number of sites based on
Microsoft's layout). The original message which highlighted these sites
(NTK) said
> ...webmaster at
> http://www.elonex.co.uk might not have spotted that
> http://www.gvsystems.com/home/ took his gifs, till the
> borrowed links showed up in his referrer logs...
I repeat the question: if you create a superbly laid-out page, with original
low-bandwidth GIFs, simple but effective design etc. and someone lifts it
all, changes the colour and replicates the layout, should you bother
pestering them or just be flattered? If I replicated the BBC News layout
exactly but merely replaced their GIFs with my own similar ones, would they
come after me with a big legal stick for doing an impersonation of Auntie's
website?
i.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|