fair use and copyright issues.

[james438]

I have tried to be careful with copyright issues on my site, but I have two concerns. I started using a search script from here (http://www.designplace.org/scripts.php?page=1&c_id=25). I have since edited it, removed useless code, and improved upon it greatly so that it is 99% different (and better) than before. Probably closer to 100% than 99%. I referenced on my site where I got the original script from on my site in case wants to know.

My question is how much can a file be altered and still be considered someone else's?

Next, I used to review anime on my site and would take screenshots of the anime (usually 6) and would display them in the review to give an idea of the art style and quality used in the show. I am pretty sure this is fine, if not you can say so.

I have heard of creative commons, but I am not so sure how legal that is. It looks fine enough, but so do a lot of sites.

Last, and this is the most questionable. On my site I have a banner that I adapted from a screenshot that was taken from an anime in Japan. I then cropped it how I wanted it and altered it a bit and added the logo of my website on it. Copyright violation? If so I can remove it and make a new one.

[Twey]

The former is perfectly legal: you're allowed to use parts of the publication as illustrations under fair use. The latter probably isn't, since you're creating your own work. You might want to take it down, or you could wait until they give you warning. The Creative Commons license is irrelevant in both cases, since it's someone else's work, not your own: you can't change someone else's copyright license to suit your purposes :)

As usual, I'm not a lawyer, and if in doubt you should seek advice from a legal expert, &c.

[james438]

can you be more specific. As far as taking it down are you referring to the search script or the banner? If the banner then that makes sense, but if the search feature. Well, I have rewritten that entirely. I can think of very little that is the same except for the fact that they are both designed to search a database. I could describe the differences, but it is easier to describe the similarities. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack to find the remnants of the original search program in my new script.

I get maybe 4 visits a day and mostly from search engines, so this isn't really too much of a legal issue, but I would like to be not violating any copyright laws. I think you were referring to the banner though, so I will take that one down.

[Twey]

Er, sorry, I missed the search script question. If you've completely rewritten it and just used a few lines of code from the original, you should be OK, though I'm not entirely sure on this one.

[james438]

echo "<h4>Results</h4>";
echo "<p>Sorry, your search: &quot;" . $trimmed . "&quot; returned zero results</p>";
}
// get results

I think that is the only original part that remains ;). Were you saying that the use of a few images (not a lot) listed at the bottom of the page to give an example of the quality of artwork in the show is ok? I will see if I can find some other info and post it here.

[Twey]

Yes, I'm as certain as someone without a law qualification can be.

[djr33]

Technically, that is still copying it. But it's so little, and just a very small working component, which you clearly understand, that it shouldn't be much of a problem.
Technically copying a single character without permission would be illegal, but that would simply be impossible to trace.
Same here, basically.
It really comes down to learning or copying, and whether it is really using someone else's work.

If you did use their work, even in the concept of the script that you rewrote, I'd say give credit if it's due.


However, this is being extremely picky, so I wouldn't worry about it, in practice. Just theory. Of course, though, always give credit if someone deserves it. Wouldn't you want them to do the same?
(Not to say this necessarily fits the current situation.)

One way to tell is if you are asking, you probably did borrow from someone ;)

[james438]

I am currently talking to someone who has a pretty good understanding of the law. I will post what his credentials are when I find out. Some of you may already know him. Chris Beasley is the consultant for sitepoint and has a forum section that specifically deals with the law. I asked him three of the four questions mentioned above.


1. My banner is a screenshot from one of those shows. I cropped it and edited it to fit on the screen and overlayed it with the name of my site. This was to give the site a bit of color as opposed to a text layout.

I also asked about:

2. screenshots
3. search script


1. This is fine, it is fair use for the purpose of review (commentary).

2. See 1.

3. One of the rights of the copyright holder is the right to restrict derivative works. You've made a derivative work.

Only if 100&#37; of the code was replaced could you claim it as your own. So do that last 1%.

I replied asking him to look at the banner to see if I heard right, because his answer surprised me. I do plan on changing that 1% in my script.

djr33: I would love to give credit to someone if it is due and have listed where I got the idea from and that I have built upon his script, but his site is largely broken and almost all of his links for asking for help are broken. The only way that I could contact him is if I sent a request to buy banner time on his site. My desire is to try and get a script out that will help people to search their own site and allow them to learn from it as well. I am wondering what rights the previous owner has to what I have written. I certainly do not want to steal it or claim that it is mine, which is why I am asking about it.

I did post a link on this site several months ago to the source code of an earlier version I was working on. At that point it was about 98-99% different already, but now I am a little more cautious about copyright issues.

[djr33]

I'm not saying you aren't being fair to him in this case. Don't think I was accusing you of that.
I'm just saying that generally, give credit if you can. If you can't... that's more vague. Ha.


Technically, ANYTHING copied is stolen, if you don't have permission. That's true.
But in practice, it isn't exactly that strict.
The question in the bit of code above is whether you would code it the same way.
If you look at his script as an example and end up with the same script, and you would have reached the same thing in the end anyway, then that's fine.
But if there was a method you didn't otherwise know, and it seems unique, then I would say it's taking it.

One way to be sure it's ok (aside from concepts, which also have some copyright laws, though that's even more vague) is to rewrite as you are doing. If you end up with similar code (without intentionally copying), then that just makes sense... it does the same thing.

In practice, the worst that would happen to you in using this would be getting a cease and desist letter or a complaining email. At that point, ask if you could credit them, or if you need to remove it, and the end. Seems fair enough.

[james438]

Woot! Chris Beasley wrote a reply to my question :) He is not a lawyer, but he has taken classes on the subject and he has been dealing with website issues and the law for a number of years that he can speak with some authority. Where he can't he asks his lawyer. As far as using images in the way that I have there are two things to look for:


1. What percentage of your use compared to the whole.
2. Does your use result in lower revenue for the copyright holder.

He went into a little more depth so here is the link if you want to read up more about it: images and copyright (http://www.websitepublisher.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8197).

I suppose part of the reason I was asking about it was that I was thinking about the future. If the foundation of my site is corrupt (meaning crumbly, not immoral) then later on it will become a greater nightmare to fix and will more likely just crumble to the ground. That and my room mate has bugged me in the past about violating copyright laws and whatnot, but he likes to debate and is good at it. His debates have taught me to back up what I say with facts from people or sources that are credible.

Sorry djr33, I may have misunderstood. When I was reading your response I was thinking that you were saying this isn't much of an issue, but your last sentence made me think that you were trying to give me a friendly hint saying that I was trying to steal someone's work and wanted to get permission from others on this forum to do this, because I was in fact asking, so I felt I should clarify and defend myself. No hard feelings I hope :o

I know this may be a minor thing as Chris Beasley seemed to think as well, but over the years I have learned that many of the indiscretions that we have made, even though minor, can come back to haunt us later, so I figure I may as well take care of a few of these things now as opposed to later.

[djr33]

I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm being intentionally ambiguous.

Legally? Illegal.
Will you get caught? Most likely, no.
Does it matter? You gotta decide.

Ask yourself--
Will it hurt the copyright holder?
Will it give you an advantage you wouldn't have had otherwise?
Could you accomplish it another way?
Would you accomplish it the same way if you hadn't copied it?
Did you learn something you could repeat, so it's not just copying/pasting?

[djr33]

[FROM A PM SENT TO JAMES]


I was thinking of posting this [...] It seemed just enough off topic that it didn't quite belong in the thread. If you want I can post it though.

I think I understand you, but

Will it hurt the copyright holder? No
Will it give you an advantage you wouldn't have had otherwise? Not sure what you mean. I learned from the original code how to start work on a search script as I saw the LIKE command for the first time, but I have learned far more since then.
Could you accomplish it another way? sure, because I have learned many other tricks since then.
Would you accomplish it the same way if you hadn't copied it? Again, not sure what you mean. I did copy it so that I could tinker around with it and get familiar with the code till I could create something like that myself and in effect did (as soon as I get rid of that remaining 1&#37;. Just haven't done that yet).
Did you learn something you could repeat, so it's not just copying/pasting? Yeah, if the files are destroyed I could write it again from scratch, but I would hate to do it since a lot of work went into it.

It is important for me to do the right thing even if it doesn't cost anyone anything. It just bothers me. If someone else does it that is their business, but as for me it bugs me. I did talk to someone in authority about it though and am satisfied that what I need to do is remove that 1% of code. If the original person who made the script that I have modeled deserves the credit or ownership of it then I will do that, but that is the question.

Please take a look at the link I left in an earlier post in this thread. I think you will find it short, informative, and interesting. This response is probably a bit longer than you were thinking (or hoping ;)), but I want you to understand my position. This isn't a matter of conscience. I really am trying to do the right thing. This is about knowing what the right thing to do is. I looked in more places than just this forum for the answer. I looked and found people who have legal knowledge and what I feel are good credentials. This is not about getting caught. It is about doing what is right. Your being intentionally ambiguous to encourage me to do the right thing is admirable.


Posting in the thread would be fine. Up to you, though.

On the one hand, this is just a single line of code, no one will ever notice.... who cares? Rather silly to even ask.
On the other hand, it is illegal, and you obviously know you took it from someone. So... get permission.

Both ways make perfect sense.

In this type of case, feeling guilty is usually a good sign. Don't ask me to tell you it's ok, so you don't feel guilty using it, 'cause if you do feel guilty, then it's probably wrong.
But you're certainly not hurting anyone, so it's not a big deal.

Copyright usually only becomes an issue when money is involved.

The official right thing must be, I suppose, the law. However, there's a certain point where it becomes excessive to follow certain parts of copyright law, so you'll need to decide where to draw that line. (Should a child be sued for drawing a picture of their favorite superhero?, etc.)

The internet is a shared medium, so it isn't surprising at all that things are borrowed. It's to be expected.

If you used the ideas in the script to help you, then that's fine. If you actually directly copied the solution, then that is like plagiarism in which the words were changed by ideas were copied.


Copyright law is a big mess.

The main things to remember:
1. If money is an issue, get permission. That's where you could get in legal trouble.
2. If you get caught and asked to stop, do so, or get permission. Likely, they won't mind letting you use it, perhaps with credit.
3. Never pass anything made by someone else as your own. My avatar, which I just changed, it based on an image I found. I'm using it, without giving credit, because I don't think the creator would mind (since it's meant as a joke, to be seen), but I wouldn't tell people that I made it myself.


I think you're worrying too much about this.
But, since you are, why not give credit?
That's about it.

Now, of course, you could consider that giving credit might help the original creator find it then tell you to remove it, so you shouldn't, so they don't find it, which then of course is wrong, but if they don't find it, no harm done... etc.


I think the simplest solution would be to rewrite that line. Close the source code. Write it again. If it turns out the same, then fine. If it turns out slightly different, fine too. The end.

Now, as for the concept, it really depends on how original or special it was. If it's a webpage that has a picture on it and you got the idea for your page from that, you're safe. If it's a complex algorithm for searching for a phrase in text, that might be something you do need to credit.

Goes back to my second question, of how much of an advantage the site gives you.

Consider what would have happened had you not found the site. Did it just speed up the process? Or was it a crucial link?

You can think of this like detectives investigating a murder.
Some evidence may not be allowed in court if it was obtained illegally.
Let's say that the detectives tortured the murderer, and found out that he had a gun in his apartment. That gun wouldn't be admissible in court.
However, there is a loophole here, called, I think, "probable discovery".
If they would have found the gun anyway (meaning they would find out that he IS the murderer, get the search warrant, then search, and find it), then the gun would be allowed, because the torture didn't give an advantage.

So for your situation, would you have figured this out by yourself, given enough time? Or is this script the only way to have gotten there?


Good luck analyzing ;)