Forum Moderators: not2easy
Using a screen recorder like Camtasia, I want to create a video-like demo that shows how to use a particular software product to make visual changes to a web page in a particular way.
For the sake of demonstrating relevance, I want to use the basic layout from "famous" web pages from popular sites.
In such a scenario, the original text content doesn't matter, it's the look of the page and the layout that counts, so I can swap out the original text content with "dummy" text and do the same with images by using similar but royalty-free images instead of the originals. There could also be a disclaimer that says no endorsement of the product is to be construed if the page looks familiar.
Does this violate copyright?
Looking for any and all input.
Does this violate copyright?
If the design is copyrighted, yes.
Marshall
(And remember, I'm using an image of the page, I'm not swiping the page itself.)
Take Google's search page, for instance.
What parts of it are copyrighted?
Of course the logo. But what about the layout? There's a series of nav links running across the top of the page and a centered input box with two submit buttons beneath. (And A few other links sprinkled around.)
What is copyrightable about this design, this placement of HTML elements? (Not asking rhetorically, does anybody know?)
And then, I'm also wondering about how the domain name plays into copyright. The domain name is an identifying label of great significance, I would think.
Thanks for the input so far. I'm going to do some more research but the sense that I'm getting is that there can be little in the way of repercussions if I take this approach.
There is also the issue of "Fair Use". Commentary and review are at or near the top of the list for "Fair Use" allowances. It sounds as though you are not wanting to make something similar to what is being offered on the various sites, but are wanting to use familiar sources as the backdrop for examples of how to use something else entirely.
For instance, a person could use a picture of the "Mona Lisa" (a familiar image) to demonstrate how the pre-packaged "tools" in a graphics program (such as Photoshop) could affect the image. While this would, technically, create "derivative" works based on the original, the purpose is not the images but rather the demonstration of something utterly unrelated. The illustrative purposes (perhaps in a review of the afore-mentioned "tools") could arguably bring "Fair Use" considerations into play.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are wanting to do something similar, but with a web-page editor instead of a graphics program...? As such, I think your usage should be acceptable. (Talk with your solicitor first, of course, especially if you plan to "use" screen-shots of web sites belonging to deep-pockets companies.)
Eliz.
Rather than offer my own poor explanation, here's an Introduction to Copyright [fairuse.stanford.edu] from a marvellous resource provided by Stanford University in the USA.
Syzygy
[edited by: Syzygy at 5:12 pm (utc) on July 15, 2008]
Formatting, fonts, etc can also be protected under various "Trade Dress" doctrines..
None of this is cut-and-dried..
talk with a lawyer... The money (and troubles) you save in the long run will be your own.
I found a terrific site for fair use - search "benedict copyright fair use". Good articles and there is actually a form-based "fair use" analyzer.
I think I've honed in on the issues, here.
Here's a real-world scenario to consider:
Let's say I want to demonstrate a browser plug-in that automatically re-styles web pages for those with certain kinds of color-blindness.
I AM NOT A LAWYER - but based on what I've read, not only can I do a screen shot presentation with no alterations at all to the page to which the plug-in's effects are to be applied, but I could even go one step further:
I could take the page - let's use Webmasterworld's homepage for example since it's so easy for us to visually imagine - scrape it, strip the page of anything that isn't related to the demonstration like RSS feeds, etc.., remove hrefs to create dead links, etc... and then re-style the page in the same manner as the plug-in would do. If it's pertinent to the product demo, even the logo can stay.
I can then post that page on my site and it's fair use, no copyright violation at all.
Even more so if the plug-in is being offered for free as a public service.
Given that such a use is nothing but free publicity, I don't even see why Brett would object. (Brett, if you're reading this, wouldja?)
On the other hand, some companies take a knee-jerk approach to having their content used in any way, anywhere, for whatever purpose and it wouldn't surprise me if a letter from a lawyer arrived.
Legally, a big part of the bottom line seems to be - what harm has been done to the copyright and/or trademark holder? And in this case, none that I can see as long as there is clear labeling of the page's purpose.
Anyway, that's the way I see it after the reading I've done. My scenario sits somewhere in the gray area of what constitutes fair use.
I could take the page - let's use Webmasterworld's homepage for example since it's so easy for us to visually imagine - scrape it, strip the page of anything that isn't related to the demonstration like RSS feeds, etc.., remove hrefs to create dead links, etc... and then re-style the page in the same manner as the plug-in would do. If it's pertinent to the product demo, even the logo can stay.
I can then post that page on my site and it's fair use, no copyright violation at all.
Give it a go, and when you're done ask those whose pages and design you've taken if they object.
I'm keen to find out what you learn :-)
Syzygy
