Hey /g/, Is ripping off a website's design legal? If I

Give the copyrights to your client so he'll be held responsible in case a competitor sees the site.

I would assume as long as the source code that generates the webpage is not stolen, all would be good. Just don't make it too obvious?

> If I download all the layout files, (HTML, CSS, JS, Images)

No you stupid nigger. Of course the files all belong to them.

It goes from blatant infringement to somewhat dubious if you created the look-alike site from scratch.

And no you can't pass on responsibility for breaking the law to your client.

It's "inspired" if you just change the files slightly, change the code, css, different fonts and colours. Just tweak it a tiny bit.

>>52243898
Of course it's ok! Don't listen to the retards saying it's stealing!

t. competitor

>>52243898
u dun goof'd.

>>52243898
No, it's not legal. Technically even reproducing the design with your own code is illegal.

Although websites often have a common set of design standards excusing many designs as it makes similarities unavoidable, which gives you some leeway.

There are tons of templates you can get for free/cheap, so why steal?

Ask your lawyer, OP, not /g/. Pay someone to laugh at you for once.

>>52245494
>No, it's not legal. Technically even reproducing the design with your own code is illegal.
What nonsense, tons of websites look similar, but there has never been a case where a similar looking site have gotten in trouble and there is no laws explicitly mentioning that it is illegal so how did you come up with that nonsense?

Code it yourself, change design slightly and you're good to go

Prerequisite: Non-commercial use and no direct copying of logos

What could the original owner even do? Send DCMA claims to your hosting company?

>>52243898
>A client asked me to make their website look exactly like a competitors
And you didn't tell your "client" to get lost? You got to have 0 self-respect for your own work if you let yourself pay for stealing other people's stuff.

>>52245569
>he doesn't know what copyright is

>>52245609
that's what happens when you always pirate your chinese cartoons

>>52245569
I studied law.

>>52243929
That's not how copyright infringement works. OP can't give the copyright away because he doesn't own it, and both he and his client will be liable for infringement.

>>52243898
it's illegal

>>52245569
There have been cases where people got sued even for using the same colors.

>>52245609
Copyright violation is taken someone's intellectual property. Designing a website inspired by a design is not a copyright infringement. I was a professional artist for years, I know copyrights. You can not get in legal trouble for taking someone's design if the code is different and nobody mistakes you for the other company. They will waste millions on legal fees and not get any results.

>>52245938
It's an artistic work. Guess what is copyrighted?
Changing the code slightly is meaningless. If I scan a book into a computer it's on an entirely different medium. Guess what is still copyright infringement?

>>52245938

>They will waste millions on legal fees and not get any results.

This seems accurate

It's definitely a gray area. Who's right is probably who has the most money.

For extra fun you could link directly to their CSS which is even fuzzier legality. You technically haven't copied a thing. Can't copyright links bitches (unless you pay the judges a yacht or two).

>>52243898
>If I download all the layout files
>Is it legal?
No you stupid fuck.

>>52246707
Meaning downloading a copy of a website. All files publicly available. Edited heavily.

Non-programmer: it's illegal wah wah wah

Programmer: fuck off and prove it

>>52243898
depends on the licenses those documents you copies are under

>>52246750
Most people dont realize sueing someone is just sending two letters and then presenting your evidence to court. For a serious company that's really no big deal.

You can steal from small blogs all you want. But if you try to start your own business off another business his work you just shoot yourself in the foot. While it adds nothing of value to your site.

>>52246779
By that logic would there have to be a copyright sign or whatever on each image?

>>52246784
The business where I work for example is insures for things like these. So I could just call the insurance and let their lawyers deal with it. And it would cost us nothing.

>>52246808
Those signs dont do anything. Standard copyright laws always apply, unless the copyright holder deviates from it by releasing it's work under a different license.

>>52246808
no, but it needs to be written somewhere that those images are under a license that allows you to reuse them for commercial purposes

>>52246837
and this >>52246836
absence of copyright signs doesn't mean they're fair game, everything is automatically legally owned by the creator unless the creator specifies otherwise

In college in the late 90s/early 2000s, we were literally taught how to steal web site designs. If someone copied your code you must have had an awesome site, it was flattering. Times have changed I guess.

>>52246873
Did you go to college in India?

>>52246887
Lol no, Indiana University

>>52245630
Then you won't last long in the field.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/protection/resources/byerly_unedited.html

>>52245968
You would fail so miserably at law.

>>52245634
Even if "Look and Feel" were protected by copyright (they are not), the client would be liable to the original holder. The onus for recouping the loss back from the contractor would be on the client. Holder sues client, then client would have to sue contractor.

>>52247037
>he thinks you can scan a book and it's not copyright infringement
Jesus Christ

it's only illegal after you get sued and lose

dumb fuck op

>>52247030
It's the same thing with people copying t-shirt designs really. A website is no different, except it's protected in multiple ways. The design and the code.

>>52247171
And possibly the brands.

>>52247030
>1998
I guess that was before the gazillion copyright treaties.

>>52243898
>is ripping a complete website illegal?
no
>Is using said rip for commercial use illegal?
yes

use it as inpiration, look how they did things and create your own version based on it from scratch

seriously, you're talking about a "client" which implicates that you are getting paid for this shit, be professional and do what you get paid for; design a fucking website

>>52247319
>be professional and do what you get paid for; design a fucking website
But what I have no idea what I'm doing?