This site, and many others, are licensed under a sort of GPL-For-Text called Creative Commons. This little contract has several variations but, in general, it says “use my stuff, but credit me” (you can choose other options, but few do). The point, of course, is to spread the author’s content around the web as needed (as well as his name, of course) without fear.
It’s a good idea, really. It makes it quite clear that you own what you wrote and that others can use it without asking under certain conditions. Now, what happens if someone violates that? Well, typical legal ramifications for copyright infringement would ensue because all Creative Commons is is a license that allows the use of a creative work while retaining copyright. With a charge of copyright infringement then comes the standard burden of proof, of course. Take this rant over at Unraveled, for example. This fellow claims that this other fellow took his CSS Tabs idea without crediting him. Well, interesting. Two things come to mind here:
- Can CSS (or HTML, for that matter) be copyrighted?
- If so, can you prove it was stolen, since there are only so many ways to do a certain task?
Can CSS Be Copyrighted?
CSS is the computer-readable code that, along with an HTML-encoded data file, creates the design of a particular web page. The key noun in that definition is “computer-readable code” because that will allow us to see if it’s copyrightable to begin with. According to the FAQ on the United States’ Copyright site:
Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
- literary works;
- musical works, including any accompanying words
- dramatic works, including any accompanying music
- pantomimes and choreographic works
- pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
- motion pictures and other audiovisual works
- sound recordings
- architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”
The answer would appear to be yes, CSS files can be copyrighted as a “literary work.” While this would include the whole file, parts thereof would also be covered and, even under the “fair use” doctrine, could only be used with attribution.
Can It Be Proven?
How many ways can you arrive at, mathematically, the number 4? Approximately infinity. How many ways can you arrive at 4 using only addition of positive integers? Two (1+3 and 2+2). Similarly, how many ways can you design an element on a web page using CSS? Approximately infinity. How many ways can you create CSS-based tabs that work in most browsers? Significantly less, approaching single digits.
Now, given that there are thousands of web designers working with CSS, the proliferation of tabs, and the desire to combine them, how probable is it that two people will come up with the same solution? There’s no reliable way to obtain numbers, any numbers, for that probability yet it can safely be assumed to not be insignificant. There is the chance, as there is with anything, that someone else will create the same thing you are (Edison wasn’t the first to invent the light bulb).
This fellow’s other argument for his tab idea being copied is that the CSS tab names were similar. Care to know what the names were?
- tabnav
- tab1
- tab2
- tab3
Creative? No. Common? Yes. The author has as much chance proving that his idea was copied as SCO has proving that Linux copied stderr.h from them (that would be zero).
Where is it From, Then?
The technique originated on A List Apart in September of 2002 and it’s what I use above, albeit modified a bit. The author claims he created his version on July 16, 2003. I’m going to go with A List Apart having prior art and since that was released into the public domain the author of Unraveled is likely committing fraud simply by claiming ownership of the idea (which is what copyright and Creative Commons are all about).
So, in short: it looks like not only was this not stolen, but the technique is common, popular, even. Should it have been attributed? Even if it was copied from the author, no, not really, as the idea was created by many people, over and over again, over several years. It’s public domain, entirely possible it was “discovered” on his own or copied from another site (with less arduous claims to its originality), and even has a note in the CSS file as to where to go for more information on the idea.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I or have I ever had the intent to be one. If you trust any of this as accurate legal advice then you were born of radioactive, retarded monkeys and should be shot for the sake of humanity.
Did you even bother to read the whole rant, or any of the following comments? Your facts are wrong. Sure, the general technique for doing tabs is commong, but this specific technique for producing those tabs was created by the guy who wrote the rant. Sure, other people have created similar-looking tabs, but in this case it’s the specific CSS code that matters. Your comments about the names being used as the basis for copying is completely wrong. Sure, the names were the same, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that all the properties were exactly the same in the CSS, in the same order. A page showing both CSS files together showed this very clearly. How many ways can you make tabs? It’s a small number. But how many ways can you write a page full of CSS properties? At the very least, thousands. I have absolutely no doubt that Erik stole Joshua’s tabs and refused to attribute it to him.
BTW, have you seen the comments Erik wrote in the CSS in response to Joshua’s rant? It’s one of the most outrageous things I’ve ever seen. Not only has Erik stolen his CSS and outright lied about it, he’s also taunting Joshua in the comments. See it for yourself in the source here
Oh? From the article, which I apparently read a little more intently than you:
In short:
This brings up an issue that I guess we’ve all been guilty of over the years – but should we feel guilty?
I don’t know about you guys but I learnt html, css, javascript, dhtml, etc, largely from visiting interesting sites and looking at their code to see how they were built. I’d like to think the designs were never copied out-right by me, but sure, a few techniques probably were, at least until I understood them enough to modify them to do new things.
A CSS image replacement here, a form validation there, if a sizable chunk of complex code (like a javascript include) was used, sure I’d have a credit, but a couple of pieces of css that is just a variation on a well known theme? Hell, without looking at the code I wouldn’t even know if people had stolen that from me and I have to say I’m not sure I’d care.
So unless everyone has learnt their craft straight form a book or a course and produces new code in a clean room, maybe a bit of latitude is needed, because we all learn from the sites we see, even if some of us are too lazy to change the code, or don’t yet understand it enough to try. It’s a learning process. It’s progress. It’s spreading of ideas, Yes, it’s sometimes annoying.
Oh, and if the agreaved in question has been in web development long enough, they’ll need to grow a thicker skin. If you’re good enough, this won’t be the first time it’ll happen. Call it flattery.
I know that and most others know that too. The general method is not the point. The point is the almost exact duplication of code without any attribution.
You use a similar technique, but it uses only three selectors. It’s difficult to compare the ordering of properties when you only use half the number of selectors.
Yes, you’re right, there are only nine ways of ordering three properties. But this was much more than a rearranging of three properties. The selectors and the properties were in the same order. The CSS used in CSS Tabs has six selectors and nineteen properties. For simplicity, let’s say that each selector has only three properties. How many ways are there to write that CSS? Let’s do the math:
So for c properties and f selectors, there are (c!)^f possibilities.
That makes 46656 different ways. A good chance of it happening? More like almost no chance of it happening.