File a DMCA notice against their web hosting company because the copyright for the design is held by you unless you explicitly transferred it. Even if you implicitly or explicitly granted license for use, you still retain the moral copyright over the work which is designed specifically to prevent others claiming to have authored work which was in fact authored by yourself.

File a DMCA notice against their web hosting company because the copyright for the design is held by you unless you explicitly transferred it.

I didn't transfer it, either explicitly or implicitly.

I phoned the hosting company and they said to send an email to their "business" email address, which I did early last week. They've done nothing. I've looked up their whois and there's no street address to send mail to, only a P.O. Box, so there can be no proof of them receiving it.

Send a registered letter. You'll at least know they received it, since they need to sign for it.

edit: Oh, I see what you mean. Just a PO Box...no way to get a proper address.

[edited by: Gibble at 5:43 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2007]

If their immediate hosting provider only has a PO BOX and doesn't respond to this kind of request then they are probably a small reseller operation. A traceroute and/or check on the IP assignment will normally identify someone bigger just above them who will respond.

If their immediate hosting provider only has a PO BOX and doesn't respond to this kind of request then they are probably a small reseller operation. A traceroute and/or check on the IP assignment will normally identify someone bigger just above them who will respond.

Yes, absolutely no response or acknowledgement of having received that C&D email. This is exactly what I'm pursuing at this point, since the upstream provider (Alabanza) surely must have TOS regarding their distributors. No fax number, no street address to contact, nothing but a P.O. Box. and an email address - and no response.

Be VERY careful about a DMCA in this case. MDCA is about copyright, which is in the case of a web design would really only cover any programming code, text and graphics. It isn't likely to cover the "design" of the website or the HTML. If you file a takedown, and they successfully fight it, you can be out a 6 figure amount.

There are almost certainly ways you can fight it, but I'm just not sure that a DMCA takedown notice is the way to go. This is definitely a case to talk with an attorney if you really care that much about it.

As far as I know, in the US, copyright extends to the entire web design just as it applies to any other visual work of art. Of course, if the design is purely utilitarian and not creative it would be a different matter.

The right of a web designer to stop changes being made to his artistic work by others has been discussed here in the past and comes under creation of derivative works and the right to protect the integrity of the work.

I did see these in Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright code:

Chapter 1 § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Chapter 1 § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

Another thing to watch in the US is that it might be classed as 'work for hire', which changes things considerably; this requires that 'parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire'.

BigDave, the issue is really about another party taking credit, and being given attribution, for designing a site that they did not, in fact, design. Nor are they in any way responsible for the search engine placement of the site. #1 at all the search engines. NOT a competitive keyphrase, but very targeted and according to the site owner, sending enough traffic to keep them too busy for anything else (their own description).

Believe me, I do not want to be *BLAMED* for the current condition of that site! Nor do I want to be linked to. What was originally a homepage that loaded in under a few seconds (under 5KB total, images and code) now has a file size of approximately 250KB and loads slow as molasses. No way to I want to be linked to as the designer of that site; but nevertheless, neither do I think someone else should be given credit, with the accompanying assumption that they in any way had anything to do with the search engine rankings, which they did not.

Believe me, I do not want to be *BLAMED* for the current condition of that site!

That comes under your right to integrity; if you do have copyright over it then you have the right to require that the design retains its original form or is removed in its entirety.

This is definitely a case to talk with an attorney if you really care that much about it.

I really do *not* care all that much about it, certainly not enough to pay an attorney concerning a simple little "budget" site that was charged altogether about what an attorney would charge for one hour, other than that someone else is trying to take credit for designing and doing up a site, with a link back attributing them for what they did not create (specifically because of its rankings) which they didn't have anything at all to do with - not the design or the site's rankings.

The issue is: the fraudulent attribution to someone who had nothing whatsoever to do, at any time now or in the past, with the design, coding or promotion of the site.

At this point, I'm most of all outraged at the audacity of the "faux designer's" inane response, and seriously disappointed at the lack of any response at all from the web host, one way or another, and the complete inability to contact the web hosting company per standard recommendations.

Marcia, that is hy I suggested that there might be other ways to fight them, but the DMCA would not be appropriate because of the risk. Did you have a contract with the site owners, and did the contract cover these issues? Contract law would be a much better hammer in this case, if it is available to you.

Vince, while it might seem intuitive to you that it *should* be covered, I can assure you that most cases that I have read make it seem highly unlikely that you could win a case based on that. The problem is that when you start subtracting everything that isn't protected by copyright, or more precisely *your* copyright, there is little or nothing left.

That is why I mentioned graphics. then you are no longer working on "look & feel" issues, but a specific, protectable design element.

Believe me, I do not want to be *BLAMED* for the current condition of that site! Nor do I want to be linked to. What was originally a homepage that loaded in under a few seconds (under 5KB total, images and code) now has a file size of approximately 250KB and loads slow as molasses. No way to I want to be linked to as the designer of that site; but nevertheless, neither do I think someone else should be given credit, with the accompanying assumption that they in any way had anything to do with the search engine rankings, which they did not.

I'm confused. If the page changed from 5KB to over 250KB then obviously it has been rewritten so how can you claim design of it?

And if you no longer have a role in SEO I don't see how you can claim credit for current search engine rankings even if the reason they still have them is because they haven't screwed it up yet.

Andy

I'm confused. If the page changed from 5KB to over 250KB then obviously it has been rewritten so how can you claim design of it?

Because I designed it, that's how. And no, it hasn't been re-designed or rewritten (not that adding text makes someone a designer, it's just adding text).

How can the size change? Very simple! Replace a few images that were between {3KB and 5 or 6KB each, one was 8KB) with images of current products in the same spots and don't resize them or do anything to reduce file sizes. The prior images were between 3KB and 5KB. Now:

1) Call the image 66x107 in the html, but the actual image measurement linked in the img src= is 372 x 539 and is 69,003 in file size.
2) Call the image 85x63 in the html, but the actual image measurement in the img src= is 598 x 560 with a file size of 80,475.
3) Image was 8kb, replaced by one in the same spot that's 59,338 in file size.
Then add a banner with an outbound link under the navigation... you get the picture. Start doing the math.

current search engine rankings

Are you saying you've never seen a site retain their rankings for a number of years? Or is it some kind of an accident or fluke? :)

Because I designed it, that's how. And no, it hasn't been re-designed or rewritten (not that adding text makes someone a designer, it's just adding text).

Based on what you are saying and how you are saying it... it seems like you are trying to retain copyright for the overall look & feel of the website.

Content (text and images) is copyrightable... the client usually provide it and it sounds like it has changed.

The code to produce the website is copyrightable... but if it is html and css I would guess it would be tougher to assert your rights over it compared to if it was php or net where you get into more traditional software development.

Look & Feel by itself... I thought that fell more into patents if unique instead of copyrights.

Are you saying you've never seen a site retain their rankings for a number of years? Or is it some kind of an accident or fluke? :)

Of course I have and I am assuming the current SEO is related to your work. BUT... legally are you assuming responsibility if the rankings go into the tank or did you guarantee that they would retain their rankings you achieved after you stopped working on the website?

I assume the answer is no to both questions which in my mind means you can't legally claim responsibility for the current positive SEO unless you also assume responsibility for any negative SEO that happens.

Andy

I can understand your feelings on this. I also designed a site for someone once that later ended up working with someone else. The other person went in and changed some content and changed a few minor items and then placed at the bottom "site re-designed by..." I was extremely annoyed since the entire design was really my work and they had only altered extremely minor items before taking credit for the whole thing.

I eventually approached the owner and explained the problem. The owner did make the new webmaster remove the link. I explained that if they actually design the site brand new from top to bottom then I have no issue, but when you only change minor items nobody would notice and claim credit for the entire thing I do have a problem. In this case talking to the actual owner of the site solved the problem, so I would suggest maybe you try that first and see what happens. Explain why you feel you are being taken advantage of. If the person agrees perhaps they will at least make the webmaster remove the link, which is a minor victory.

andyll, please read the first post again. If you'll please re-read post #1 you'll see that this topic is about someone else taking "credit" for a work that they did NOT create and therefore has no right to claim that they were the "designer" of something that I designed.

I don't see why *I* have to keep defending myself in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the ramifications of the permanence or transiency of search engine rankings, I'd suggest that you start a new thread on that topic and let this thread stay on the topic it's about. Thank you.

I eventually approached the owner and explained the problem. The owner did make the new webmaster remove the link. I explained that if they actually design the site brand new from top to bottom then I have no issue, but when you only change minor items nobody would notice and claim credit for the entire thing I do have a problem. In this case talking to the actual owner of the site solved the problem,

Thank you, FortuneHunter. That was my position, that it would have to be re-designed, and I did let the site owner know, with full explanation - very nicely until the point when it was time to get more FORMAL. It was explained for two weeks. :)

If the person agrees perhaps they will at least make the webmaster remove the link, which is a minor victory.

The final outcome of this is that the owner did nothing, but when the "Formal" email was sent, this newbie who updated (messed up) the site contacted a friend who has experience with programming & websites, who in turn contacted me saying that yes, it was in violation ("illegal" to use his words) and upon his advice the link and giving credit fraudulently were taken down.

In the meantime, the rep from the upstream provider (a very big outfit) of the hosting has phoned me back and asked that I please forward all the information regarding the web host involved, since it's not consistent with their TOS for a downstream provider to completely ignore such requests and not provide any address or fax to send something more tangible that conforms to proper procedures.

[edited by: Marcia at 8:22 pm (utc) on Nov. 17, 2007]

Thank you, Vince. *Exactly* what it is, is an attribution issue:

Info at Cornell Univ. [law.cornell.edu]

Very specific. It isn't at all a money issue; the site owner messed the site up earlier this year and I spent a few hours straightening it out and didn't charge a dime. I said to just keep giving credit for the work done and it'll be fine, which was much appreciated by her then.

It's a matter of right or wrong, or playing clean or dirty; and a matter of being truthful and ethical or being a hypocrite. What makes it worse is that both this site owner and the host make a big, special deal up front about what they are, and about having "values."

[edited by: Marcia at 12:29 am (utc) on Nov. 18, 2007]

I don't see why *I* have to keep defending myself in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the ramifications of the permanence or transiency of search engine rankings, I'd suggest that you start a new thread on that topic and let this thread stay on the topic it's about. Thank you.

Marcia... please do not chastise me or tell me to start a new thread when I am just responding to your posts.

In your reply to Dave you are the one that brought up your SEO on the website. (and in posts after it)

As far as defending yourself... if you only wanted responses supporting your position then you should have stated so.

All I have done is ask you to clarify what you mean by 'Design' and if you are just talking about the 'look & feel of the site'

Believe me, I do not want to be *BLAMED* for the current condition of that site! Nor do I want to be linked to.

It is hard for me to read anything more into that then the website has now marginally changed enough that it might be hard for you to assert a copyright over the coding of it.

Andy

>>marginally changed enough

Replacing product photos does not constitute redesigning a site. Even changing a graphic element doesn't constitute a re-design. Every ecommerce site updates products or adds a new product every so often (many weekly). The code and layout and coding and naming conventions certainly can stay the same - and have.

Misleading attribution is a serious issue.

>SEO

<meta name="rankings" content="top ten, permanent">

It's a matter of right or wrong, or playing clean or dirty; and a matter of being truthful and ethical or being a hypocrite.

Marcia, I completely agree with you and since you already tried going to the owner and being nice and it got you nowhere you should feel 100% justified in playing hard ball and punching back very hard, read legally, until justice is served.