45 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
45 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is a closed website still copyright??

by algarve
35 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
I have seen many websites that no longer exist, you can view past pages via wayback machine. Is it still copyright even though the website does not exist? can people just take the info and use it?
#closed #copyright #website
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by algarve View Post

    Is it still copyright even though the website does not exist?
    Yes. Whether or not something is copyright generally has nothing to do with whether (or where) it's published.

    The author's copyright exists the moment something's been created. Whether it's registered or not. Whether it's published or not.

    Originally Posted by algarve View Post

    can people just take the info and use it?
    No.

    (I'm not a lawyer).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621571].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author algarve
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Yes. Whether or not something is copyright generally has nothing to do with whether (or where) it's published.

      The author's copyright exists the moment something's been created. Whether it's registered or not. Whether it's published or not.



      No.

      (I'm not a lawyer).
      Can they still use it if they show who the author is? I have seen my work used and in text of size 6 the link to my closed site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
    Put it this way. A local store goes belly up and closes their doors, do you really thing that you can just take all the merchandise because they are no longer open.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621582].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HN
      Banned
      Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

      Put it this way. A local store goes belly up and closes their doors, do you really think that you can just take all the merchandise because they are no longer open.
      What if they close the store and abandon (throw away) the merchandise? Not a good analogy anyway, because the store most likely sells someone else's sh!t.

      How about this one? The author abandons the idea to publish the book and throws away the manuscript.

      Obviously you still need to buy the rights, but is it so obvious?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621731].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Yes, it's obvious. You can't excuse a violation by coming up with "what if's".
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
        ***
        Sometimes dirt, horse hair and dog slobber are just good for the soul.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621747].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HN
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Yes, it's obvious. You can't excuse a violation by coming up with "what if's".
          Obviously it's not. Otherwise such questions wouldn't be asked.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622828].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alast
            Originally Posted by HN View Post

            Obviously not, otherwise such questions wouldn't be asked.
            Person 1: Do I have to keep someone alive if I dislike them, and they have an illness anyway?
            Person 2: Yes, it's obvious. You can't excuse a violation by coming up with "what if's".
            You: Obviously not, otherwise such questions wouldn't be asked.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622834].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cali16
              Originally Posted by algarve View Post

              Can they still use it if they show who the author is? I have seen my work used and in text of size 6 the link to my closed site.
              First, I'm not a lawyer - just to be clear, so my response is based on my understanding and information purposes only.

              Just because your site is "closed" doesn't automatically mean the content is fair game. Also, just giving credit to the original author or a link to the original source doesn't exempt anyone from potential copyright infringement.

              In the U.S. we have what are called "DMCA Takedown Notices" for this type of situation. However, you're in Portugal and you didn't say (or may not know) where the owner of the offending website resides, so your options with regards to a takedown notice may be different, as the laws probably vary from country to country.

              Here's an article that may be helpful: Enforcing Online Copyright Protections Abroad: Understanding Foreign Takedown Notice Requirements | The IP Exporter

              It's always best to consult with an attorney who is well-versed in Internet law. He or she can advise you regarding your options and the best route to take.
              Signature
              If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622854].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author algarve
                Many thanks great advice and link, I did think that if they mentioned the source that they could use it. I might now reuse the info on my current site then ask for it to be removed.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622883].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by algarve View Post

                  I did think that if they mentioned the source that they could use it.
                  No - a lot of people believe this, but it isn't so.

                  Your material is copyright-protected whether it's displayed on an active site or not, whether you've registered a copyright or not, and whether you've asserted that you own the copyright or not. If you wrote it yourself, then unless you've formally assigned the copyright, in writing, to someone else, you still own it and all the subsidiary rights, too.

                  You'd be completely within your rights to serve a DMCA site takedown notice on their hosting company by email (though a less formal "warning email" to the webmaster first is normal), albeit that that doesn't necessarily guarantee that the host will comply with it, if they're overseas and feel that their being outside US jurisdiction means they can just ignore it. It still very often works, though, even under those circumstances.

                  (I'm still not a lawyer.)

                  .
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622972].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author algarve
                    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                    No - a lot of people believe this, but it isn't so.

                    Your material is copyright-protected whether it's displayed on an active site or not, whether you've registered a copyright or not, and whether you've asserted that you own the copyright or not. If you wrote it yourself, then unless you've formally assigned the copyright, in writing, to someone else, you still own it and all the subsidiary rights, too.

                    You'd be completely within your rights to serve a DMCA site takedown notice on their hosting company by email (though a less formal "warning email" to the webmaster first is normal), albeit that that doesn't necessarily guarantee that the host will comply with it, if they're overseas and feel that their being outside US jurisdiction means they can just ignore it. It still very often works, though, even under those circumstances.

                    (I'm still not a lawyer.)

                    .
                    Many Thanks, I will go down that root and send a email asking for it to be taken down,before threatening them with the DMCA. Thanks all for the help I have now got my answer.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622992].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
        Originally Posted by HN View Post

        What if they close the store and abandon (throw away) the merchandise?

        That's ridiculous, we aren't talking about discarded items



        Originally Posted by HN View Post

        Not a good analogy anyway, because the store most likely sells someone else's sh!t.


        I'll have to use your favorite phrase to start with. "What if" The store sold it's own product line!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623760].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
        Originally Posted by HN View Post

        What if they close the store and abandon (throw away) the merchandise? Not a good analogy anyway, because the store most likely sells someone else's sh!t.
        Actually, it was a pretty good analogy. I don't know your retail experience, but the vast majority of store owners have to first purchase the merchandise they offer for sale. It's their inventory.
        Signature


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623870].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HN
          Banned
          Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

          That's ridiculous, we aren't talking about discarded items

          I'll have to use your favorite phrase to start with. "What if" The store sold it's own product line!
          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          Actually, it was a pretty good analogy. I don't know your retail experience, but the vast majority of store owners have to first purchase the merchandise they offer for sale. It's their inventory.
          Thanks for a good laugh, guys. What a great way to start a new day!
          Instead of grasping at straws, can you explain me this.

          There's a store that sells vacuum cleaners that were purchased from wholesale and is now their inventory. What has this store and their products to do with intellectual property law which is discussed in this thread?

          The stores sell products, they don't own the patents (in the vast majority of cases), the website (in question) owns the copyright to the content. If you really find the analogy good and logical I am worried about both of you.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9624399].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by HN View Post

            Thanks for a good laugh, guys. What a great way to start a new day!
            Instead of grasping at straws, can you explain me this.

            There's a store that sells vacuum cleaners that were purchased from wholesale and is now their inventory. What has this store and their products to do with intellectual property law which is discussed in this thread?

            The stores sell products, they don't own the patents (in the vast majority of cases), the website (in question) owns the copyright to the content. If you really find the analogy good and logical I am worried about both of you.

            It's a pretty simple analogy, HN. A Website's content is its inventory, per se, just as vacuum cleaners are inventory for a retail vacuum store. If the store closes, is it okay to break in and take the vacuums? No, it isn't. Just like it isn't okay to take content from a closed website. The analogy is about ownership of something. That's the basic point Joseph was making. Whether the vacuum cleaner store bought its inventory from someone else or built it themselves is irrelevant to the analogy, as is your intellectual property angle. In both cases, property owned by someone is being stolen by someone else.

            Sure, the analogy doesn't hit on all cylinders, but it's close enough to make the point. Everything outside that is just pedantic bickering.
            Signature

            Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9624423].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HN
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

              It's a pretty simple analogy, HN. A Website's content is its inventory, per se, just as vacuum cleaners are inventory for a retail vacuum store. If the store closes, is it okay to break in and take the vacuums? No, it isn't. Just like it isn't okay to take content from a closed website. The analogy is about ownership of something. That's the basic point Joseph was making. Whether the vacuum cleaner store bought its inventory from someone else or built it themselves is irrelevant to the analogy, as is your intellectual property angle. In both cases, property owned by someone is being stolen by someone else.

              Sure, the analogy doesn't hit on all cylinders, but it's close enough to make the point. Everything outside that is just pedantic bickering.
              I absolutely agree with you. It's pretty darn too simple.

              When the website closes the doors, abandons the domain, it means anyone can register that abandoned domain. However, they won't get the original content, that's clear, I am not even disputing this.

              When the physical store ceases to exist, the landlord rents the rooms to another business. I am not even discussing what happens to the products which previous owner of the store abandoned, because this is in no way comparable to website content, which can be copied to new domain. Vacuums can't be copy/pasted. Even if they were teleported, they would have disappeared from the original store. The analogy was completely off.

              Copying content is not like stealing physical goods. It is comparable to someone ripping off the design and starting to produce similar products, eg shoes: rebook, nikee, abibas etc. They don't break into the store (closed or not) and steal physical goods. They steal intellectual property.

              Riffle: is it okay to break in and take the vacuums?
              Did you mean to ask: "is it okay to peek into the window of a closed store and start producing vacuums with exact same design?" No.
              But even in this case it's not the store owner who'll have your ass sued, but the patent holder.

              Once again, how is copying content the same as taking physical goods?
              In one case you don't take anything away from the owner, causing any direct loss, he's still left with his content. In the other case you take away something, causing a direct loss.

              Pedantic or not, let's make reasonable analogies.

              Suggesting that you can't go into this abandoned house and take anything you can find there would even have made more sense than the closed store analogy.

              BTW, why aren't you discussing the other point? I 'd be much more interested to hear opinions about that one.

              "The author abandons the idea to publish the book and throws away the manuscript."
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9624511].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author algarve
            Originally Posted by HN View Post

            Thanks for a good laugh, guys. What a great way to start a new day!
            Instead of grasping at straws, can you explain me this.

            There's a store that sells vacuum cleaners that were purchased from wholesale and is now their inventory. What has this store and their products to do with intellectual property law which is discussed in this thread?

            The stores sell products, they don't own the patents (in the vast majority of cases), the website (in question) owns the copyright to the content. If you really find the analogy good and logical I am worried about both of you.
            Glad you said that as I was wondering what the hell it had to do with my original question.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9625195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author algarve
      Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

      Put it this way. A local store goes belly up and closes their doors, do you really thing that you can just take all the merchandise because they are no longer open.
      Thank for your time, But a strange way of explaining it
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622814].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    From the US Copyright Office:


    How Long Copyright Protection Endures
    Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
    A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first
    time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected
    from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a
    term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70
    years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work
    prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,”
    the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s
    death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and
    pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed
    in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will
    be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation,
    whichever is shorter.
    Other countries have similar laws.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621615].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
      Originally Posted by HN View Post

      What if they close the store and abandon (throw away) the merchandise? Not a good analogy anyway, because the store most likely sells someone else's sh!t.

      How about this one? The author abandons the idea to publish the book and throws away the manuscript.

      Obviously you still need to buy the rights, but is it so obvious?


      Well then I'd like you to pay close attention to the below quote from Dennis.



      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      From the US Copyright Office:
      How Long Copyright Protection Endures
      Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
      A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first
      time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected
      from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a
      term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70
      years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work
      prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,"
      the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's
      death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and
      pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed
      in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will
      be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation,
      whichever is shorter.

      Other countries have similar laws.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623386].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HN
        Banned
        Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

        Well then I'd like you to pay close attention to the below quote from Dennis.
        I translate and use books, that are in public domain, for my projects. I know that law for most countries.

        How is your first response related to the original question? What have the stores that sell tangible goods produced by someone else to do with intellectual property law?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623467].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Well, that question has been answered, but I have another one.

    Why are so many people worried about getting their hands on someone else's material instead of putting their efforts to making their own?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9621906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author algarve
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Well, that question has been answered, but I have another one.

      Why are so many people worried about getting their hands on someone else's material instead of putting their efforts to making their own?
      The reason I asked is I closed a domain down, and have since come across my articles on another blog. they have given a link to my old site just to cover themselves.but it did state on my old site that it was copyright.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9622809].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    1) On the other hand, if it would benefit you, ask them to give you credit as author and use an active link of your choice.

    2) If your personal attempts fail and it looks like you need to lawyer up, then the first step might be a letter from your lawyer to them, their webmaster, and the hosting company asking them to stop or comply with your wishes.

    3) Then, you'll need to ask yourself if the harm, whether just your annoyance, or financial or reputation harm, is worth the cost of hiring a lawyer and legal proceedings. A good lawyer will go over that with you.

    (Still not a lawyer - even though I was hoping I might be by the end of this thread.)
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623035].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Still not a lawyer - even though I was hoping I might be by the end of this thread.
      I hear you there. It takes for ever to qualify, these days. This thread will reach a second page before you and I get through the bar exam.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623409].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        I hear you there. It takes for ever to qualify, these days. This thread will reach a second page before you and I get through the bar exam.

        .
        And then dissertation ready for committee by the end of the thread after that?
        Signature

        "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
    Originally Posted by algarve View Post

    I have seen many websites that no longer exist, you can view past pages via wayback machine. Is it still copyright even though the website does not exist? can people just take the info and use it?
    The only thing you should be asking yourself is this.

    Do I have permission from the owner to do this?

    Everything else is simply looking for an excuse to steal.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623048].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FreedomBlogger
    the answer would be YES.

    What is copy-righted will remain copy-righted as long as the owners say so.

    Signature
    At the beginning, I thought making money online with a blog was super super hard. Not anymore. Learn the art of making money online blogging - step by step - HERE.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623485].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by FreedomBlogger View Post

      the answer would be YES.

      What is copy-righted will remain copy-righted as long as the owners say so.
      Actually, copyrights can and and do expire. That's why you see so many people selling books, ebooks and other stuff that the the copyright has expired on and the work has then entered the public domain.

      http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623536].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Except - we're talk about online and the internet isn't old enough yet for copyrights to expire.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
        ***
        Sometimes dirt, horse hair and dog slobber are just good for the soul.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623543].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Except - we're talk about online and the internet isn't old enough yet for copyrights to expire.
          Just to be clear...

          The fact is a lot of the stuff published online is originally public domain material, and pure public domain material is fair game. Not to mention the fact that if I have the right to republish something that is old, and then the copyright expires while it's on my website, that would be fair game as well.

          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623549].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            By all means, let's make the answer as complex as possible. That seems to be standard here these days.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
            ***
            Sometimes dirt, horse hair and dog slobber are just good for the soul.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Complex? Not so much...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9623583].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nidhish
    Yes even though a website is closed its still copyright protected . It actually quiet same as companies protected under company laws . BDW you do know if u wish you can settle with that perticular party & acquire there name ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9624620].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author adityasg7
    Yes it is always so...
    Signature
    Aditya Garg
    Manager at Wedding Planner Aditya
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9624636].message }}

Trending Topics