🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xOQQfCAWBXf6Ew+j@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton
<spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>JRS:  In article <3A7C875D.C7994C05@johnrnew.demon.co.uk>, seen in
>news:demon.homepages.authoring, John New <johnnew@johnrnew.demon.co.uk>
>wrote at Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:34:05 :-
>>On one commercial course on design I went on a few years ago this was
>>actively encouraged for beginners wanting to set up a new site.  I think
>>it is morally wrong as an ocasional designer but I don't see how you can
>>stop it.
>
>Two things are needed; to prove copying, and then to get satisfaction.
>

The thing I realised from my recent case was that if you've had a
*previous* design ripped off, it's going to be very, very hard to prove
it if you come up against a team of hot shot lawyers.

Sure, you might have dated archives of the entire site on your hard
drive, but then you'd have to prove that they predate the other site -
and anyone can change the dates of files.

In my case - thankfully! - because of the popularity of my site, I was
able to track down a host of published screengrabs of the disputed
design predating the (ahem!) 'tribute' site, including a 6 page feature
in a US released graphic design book. 

Without those screengrabs, I think I might have had quite a task proving
that the work was indeed mine, even if the direct, word for word, copy
of the coding, stylesheet and nav bar and graphics made it blisteringly
obvious.
-- 
Mike             urban75: UK ezine - http://www.urban75.com