Copying website layouts!

P

PHTech

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
588
Reaction score
0
Location
Witbank
I have came across 2 websites with the similiar layout and almost the same styling:

Apple & Gibson Guitars

Is this legal, or can another website look almost similiar to another one...? So what if I changed my website layout to look like that, would I then be "copying" someone elses design...?

This is 2 big companies, and how can they have almost the same look on their websites...?

Just a thought...
 
<moLe> said:
it not "that" alike
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think the layout of a website can be copyrighted. It's like an artist trying to recreate the Mona Lisa, but with his own slight twist to it. A web design or layout is just another form of art.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
Agreed. I don't think the layout of a website can be copyrighted. It's like an artist trying to recreate the Mona Lisa, but with his own slight twist to it. A web design or layout is just another form of art.
Click to expand...

I know it is not that alike, but if you have a quick look at it, it has some styling features and layouts which is almost the same... It is not that I am complaining about it, it is just something I have noticed while browsing...

Agree that it is another form of art, for creating all the nice graphics, and putting it all together...
 
The Guitar one is a CMS which uses a template...
There's nothing stopping people from creating websites or "Templates" that reflect other sites, or even exactly the same.
Unfortunately websites cannot be copyrighted, only the content...
 
You can't copyright the layout - but you can copyright logos, content, etc. Anyway, the sites are different when you get into it. Gibson has drop menus, Apple doesn't. It goes further too.

What you see that is the same is known by somes as Web 2.0 - it's a certain way of creating graphics (simple, 3D-ish). Used by many sites.
 
Raithlin said:
You can't copyright the layout - but you can copyright logos, content, etc. Anyway, the sites are different when you get into it. Gibson has drop menus, Apple doesn't. It goes further too.

What you see that is the same is known by somes as Web 2.0 - it's a certain way of creating graphics (simple, 3D-ish). Used by many sites.
Click to expand...

web 2.0 refers to the "social networking / average joe becoming more involved on internet" revolution endowed by services like twitter,Facebook,myspace,youtube and even some p2p networks. Does not refer to any particular layout or design.
 
FarligOpptreden please send me your Linq blocker source so I can modify it to make a Web 2.0 blocker. That has to be the most irritating "buzzword" ever!

Anyway didn't Microsoft loose a law suite a couple of years ago saying that they couldn't copyright the look & feel of MS Office?
 
Sheesh. Let me repeat myself here:
What you see that is the same is known by somes as Web 2.0
Click to expand...
(Did I write that dribble?)
I was referring to the general look and feel. Plenty of design blogs that I read call it that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. We are talking about layout here, not function. I invite you to follow the following links (Choose your poison ;)):
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Web+2.0+layout
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&p=Web+2.0+layout
http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Web+2.0+layout

Can I help it the phrase is being used for different meanings in different circles?
 
<moLe> said:
web 2.0 refers to the "social networking / average joe becoming more involved on internet" revolution endowed by services like twitter,Facebook,myspace,youtube and even some p2p networks. Does not refer to any particular layout or design.
Click to expand...

err....nooo, no i don't think so.

nothing to do with average joe i'm afraid.

web 2.0 = embedded video, adding of applications into a site like facebook, sites that allow you to upload videos easily, etc.

it's more about the technology.

facebook = web 2.0, basically.
 
<sarcasm>
Yay a Web 2.0 debate
</sarcasm>

Anyway I'll add my 2c none the less. The best definition of Web 2.0 I've read is it's the inter era we are currently in. ehh? When in the late 90's early 2000's we had .com, Web 2.0 is where we landed up after .com crashed, lay around, & licked it's wounds and then evolved.

Of course Web 2.0 is going to be linked with technology, because it's the technology that created it in the first place. But to say something is Web 2.0 whilst something else isn't is a "foolish" argument that will never really ever be won.

I prefer to think of it as the phase in the internet's' lifecycle that we are currently in. It's a media hyped buzzword, nothing more.
 
dequadin said:
The best definition of Web 2.0 I've read is it's the inter era we are currently in. ehh? When in the late 90's early 2000's we had .com, Web 2.0 is where we landed up after .com crashed, lay around, & licked it's wounds and then evolved.

Of course Web 2.0 is going to be linked with technology, because it's the technology that created it in the first place. But to say something is Web 2.0 whilst something else isn't is a "foolish" argument that will never really ever be won.

I prefer to think of it as the phase in the internet's' lifecycle that we are currently in. It's a media hyped buzzword, nothing more.
Click to expand...

That's the most sense I've ever read about this topic. +1
 
Keeper said:
err....nooo, no i don't think so.

nothing to do with average joe i'm afraid.

web 2.0 = embedded video, adding of applications into a site like facebook, sites that allow you to upload videos easily, etc.

it's more about the technology.

facebook = web 2.0, basically.
Click to expand...

Err....nooo, i don't think so.

It has got everything to do with the average joe i'm afraid. Seriously, mole is right. Web 2.0 is about social interaction and collaboration. It's about connecting people and shrinking the world. It's about the average Joe collaborating with all the other Toms, Dicks and Harries. Even the odd Jane or Sarah.

It's actually not about the technology. It really is a social concept, not bits and bobs performing technical wizardry. It's the demand of users and consumers that drives the evolution of the online world. There's no way in which you can provide a piece of technology or functionality if there is no inherent need for it. If people didn't have the need to get in touch with long lost colleagues or friends, or felt it necessary to express themselves in written or recorded form, then the Web 2.0 "revolution" would never have happened. Just as "Web 1.0" just provided people with access to information, Web 2.0 provides them access to other people.

Facebook = web 2.0, purely because it focuses on social interaction and networking. Embedded video and uploading abilities have been around for many years (I'm sure you'll agree), but its only about 2-3 years ago that sites started to focus on online collaboration and self-expression. That's when blogs started becoming immensely popular and pioneers in social networking (like MySpace) saw the opportunity to integrate blogging and make it more a social activity. Facebook (which started out as a university graduate site) quickly spread the social networking gospel as well and hence you see loads of new social networking sites popping up everywhere (WOMF anybody? :sick:)

People have always felt the need to expose their thoughts and feelings to the world. Web 2.0 just puts this emotional exhibitionism in the hands of the average Joe who doesn't have the time or budget to print, bind and distribute his autobiography through traditional publishing houses.
 
If I may interject here, I did a search (What exactly is Web 2.0?), and found a lovely interview with the man who is given credit for coining the phrase. What exactly does Web 2.0 mean? Well... (November 5, 2006)

Actually, it's amazing to see how many results I got - and so many different ones!!
 
Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online.
Click to expand...

It suggests that everyone -- even the most poorly educated and inarticulate amongst us -- can and should use digital media to express and realize themselves.
Click to expand...

And Michael Arrington, proprietor of TechCrunch, one of the most popular blogs covering Web 2.0 companies, defines it "as the inevitable evolution of the Web from a read-mostly medium to a read-write, or two-way medium."
Click to expand...

...pretty much fits the bill of "emotional exhibitionism".
 
...and no, Web 2.0 has nothing to do with copying website layouts!

//Thread Derail Complete :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X