Why are sites copying me?? So, it appears I have two sites trying to copy my site. First, WooHoo Simz2 is copying some of my site's images, such as: My beta badge, located at: http://sims2news.com/images/v11/beta_badge.png WooHoo's beta badge, located at: http://file.pagii.com/images/447/032/000/000/32447/photo/1/79361.png Look similar?? I think so. He also copied my guestbook image. Mine: http://sims2news.com/guestbook/images/pen.gif His: http://file.pagii.com/images/146/026/000/000/26146/photo/1/60102.png He's also copied my background image: Mine: http://sims2news.com/images/v11/bg.gif His: http://file.pagii.com/images/447/032/000/000/32447/photo/1/79380.gif He's always been copying work from my site, ever since I was on Freewebs. I know I'm sounding winy, but I don't like it that people are taking my work. Quote from WooHoo Simz2: "I decided to use the colours sky blue, mint green and minty cream to bring a fresh and welcoming design to the site. Glossy buttons and borders bring a more vista look. Transparency also brings a more modern and clean look to the site." Yea, half the reason his site looks better is that I made those images. And he took them without my consent. Now, onto another copier. Well, kinda. Guess who it is! SimsMad! He's been asking me: - Where did you get your SMF theme? - Where did you get your guestbook script? Do you notice how around some if his text in his images, he has a white glow? Hmmm, I wonder where he got that idea. What's awesome about being a webmaster if differentiating your site from others. Finding content, making images, etc is half of the fun. I know, I know, it's not really any of yours' issue, but I thought I'd just share this info. with you guys.
I sympathise with you but short of issuing an (emailed pro forma) cease and desist order you are powerless in the face of copyright piracy unless you are willing to spend real hard-earned to bring the miscreants to book. You might give us the actual the page urls with the infringing material and allow us to see the crime in action. As for SimsMad ... I can't see that imitation is copyright infringements. Graphic fx tends to run in fashions. I remember that for a while every TV station was using very similar cushion text ... it was a new toy for editors to play with ... so they all did
Lol The beta badges and background images appear here: Mine: http://sims2news.com His: http://www.woohoosimz2.co.nr/ The guestbook images appear here: Mine: http://sims2news.com/guestbook/index.php His: http://www.whs2lounge.co.nr/ > And then click on the Guestbook link
My bad! .co.nr ... that's so arcane I had to look it up. Nauru is 8 square miles of South Sea island paradise ... I doubt they have copyright laws. On the other hand the woohoo simz 2 site appears to be little more than vanity web-publishing ... because I had to ask for a url after failing to to find it with Google or by reverse engineering the pagii.com url of the pirated pngs. So, with that in mind, it is likely that almost no-one is visiting. The promised "upness" of the downloads section (promised for Oct 20) is already a day late. Memo to would be web entrepreneurs: don't set deadlines unless you are all ready to go. Deadlines should be teasers and broken deadlines make punters disappear faster than donuts in Homer Simpson's kitchen. Consider your own website well and truly promoted. I've bookmarked it and will enjoy keeping an eye on it ... <sigh> wish I had more time ... :( Meanwhile ... hmmm ... I quite like that beta sticker myself ...
Actually that domain is merely a redirect. THe site is actually hosted at Pagii.com . It's a freewebs company And I've already had someone from our team contact them
sorry. i have taken the images down and can promise you that it won't happen again. to be really honest with you i really didn't know it was against the law.I am terribly sorry however and promise that it wont happen again. Woohoo Simz 2 is all i have to entertain myself at the moment as im 15, disabled and recovering from major surgery on my spine so if there was a way of getting my site taken down please reconsider. I hope to hear from you soon ~WHS2
Thanks, woohoosimz2. No hard feelings, I wouldn't mind if you gave me credit. May I point out that on your site currently. Yes, you are right! I did take a Vista logo. But, it would be foolish to have to create a whole new Vista orb, when one that is the actual representation is readily available. For example, I'm sure all of the Vista forums, magazines and such do not remake a Vista logo over and over. Clearly, the Vista orb belongs to Microsoft Corporation. Good luck with recovery and your site.
Thanks for taking it in a "light" way Yea true, it would be pretty foolish Thanks, 3 months off school to recover lol ~ Jamie
I sincerely doubt you could remake the Vista Orb. Regardless of how you make it, the Windows Flag design is still a trademark of Microsoft
Anyone who publishes, be it on paper, on compact disc, or on the internet, should have a rudimentary knowledge of copyright law. Ignorance of a law is no defence for breaking it. In particular you should appreciate the significance of "fair usage". You should at least take time out to read up the Wikipedia article on the subject. While on the subject of publishing and law, all publishers should also have a working appreciation of the complexities of libel.
hmm ? so see if i put a little copyright sign on my site, does that mean that its protected by law ? Like if i made put copyright on my page and someone stole an image from the page, would that mean that they broke the law?? p.s. This is actually interesting lol
LOL Copyright is not in the little c in a circle. You stick that sign on to show the item is copyrighted. Copyright is a legal quagmire ... not helped by subtle variations internationally. Most times you need legal muscle (and cash) to pursue a copyright claim (if someone rips you off) .... But the really expensive issues can be avoided by making sure you cannot get sued yourself ... the best way to avoid this is not to use anything (sounds, images, text) that you didn't create yourself, from scratch.
It depends on your country's copyright law. For the United States, copyright in general is established upon completion of the work, regardless if it was published or not. There isn't a general copyright law that applies universally or globally, as it varies from country to country. It is one reason why it's often difficult to close certain sites who steal from others.
Thanks for that, Josh. I wasn't certain of the US position. It's the same in the UK. Why is it that US works usually contain an assertion of copyright? Do you know? It makes it look as though the declaration is needed to make the copyright ownership official. By the way ... copyright exists before the work is finished. If I've written 29 chapters of a novel and am stuck for an ending, no-one can come along and write a 30th chapter, killer ending and then claim copyright over the whole. Why, that would be terrible
I think you are referring to "multiple completion dates". At least in the US, copyright exists upon completion of the actual work. The ongoing editing and writing process can be documented as various completion dates. Copyright, as far as I've read and understood, does not exist before the work until it is finished. In your example of a book with 29 chapters, it has 29 completed chapters, and therefore having 29 completion points. I'm not completely sure why all US works contain an assertion of copyright, but it is my understanding that recent copyright law changes modified key aspects of copyright law. One such change, is in a mandatory copyright registration, while most helpful in a court of law when registering for one, is virtually not necessary. Copyright is implied automatically upon completion of work. It may partially have to do something with the Internet, but I have no factual evidence to back that up.
LOL Like our languages, our legal systems derive from the same origins but are still substantively different. The biggest difference is that big business in the US has more muscle in twisting the legislature's arms into making law. The DMCA is a classic case of big business getting its own way in making a law which criminalises people in their own homes. No act should be illegal unless the intent, potential, or outcome is to cause harm. Most laws are full of truck-sized holes anyway ... there'd be a good few celebs doin' hard time if that wasn't true.
