3 ms·

You used this website template (http://html5up.net/hyperspace http://html5up.net/hyperspace) which has a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and you scrubbed the auth

You used this website template (http://html5up.net/hyperspace http://html5up.net/hyperspace) which has a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and you scrubbed the author's name and attribution from the template. Please respect the license! http://html5up.net/license http://html5up.net/license

coldtea 11y ago
Not the author of this or the original, but attribution doesn't mean it should be right on the page and in the same place as the original template. The attribution text is right in the source code, first thing you'll see.
- linksbro 11y ago
  Attribution is a fine line; removing the attribution from where it was in the template and plastering "All Rights Reserved" copyright over it is a very clear violation of the creative commons license. In some situations, it's difficult to place attribution along with the media, but in this case, it's not - it's a webpage - and having the attribution be in the source code is not really acceptable, because it's not reasonably accessible for someone looking for it. If you look at that page and only that page, what leads you to believe that this is built of off a CC-BY work? Nothing. Sure, you can add "for copyright and license information, visit this link" in the footer, with a link to the github readme page that has the attribution, but removing it all together and only leaving scraps of it in the source code is just careless, reckless misuse of the original author's work.
  - chvid 11y ago
    The template author is selling an attribution free version of his template - if you click download it will say: "Need an attribution-free version? Check out Pixelarity, my latest and greatest side project that offers attribution-free usage of all of my templates, exclusive new templates, and support (from me) for just $19."
    - linksbro 11y ago
      Yeah, and this person didn't do that. Check the gh-pages branch. The license there indicates it is the CC-BY 3.0 version of the template. https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENS...
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    He's not selling a website or a template though. The "All Rights Reserved" refers to the product, ie. Tokamak, which he indeed owns. He didn't obfuscate the source, and indeed the attribution is the very first thing you see in the source (and when it comes to HTML, the source IS the website). And while he didn't comply 100% with the 'default' CC license (which reads that you should state the changes made), he did comply 100% with the 'rules' given by the author. He gave credit, and linked to the website, as well as the specific licensing terms given by the author. Tl;dr - since he's not selling a template, the copyright at the bottom obviously refers to his own product and not the web template. The attribution is in the correct spot, at the top of the source.
    - linksbro 11y ago
      What are the norms for attribution when it comes to software? You include a LICENSE file if you're distributing the source, or you display it in your software (like iPhones and Androids). What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image. What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page. The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        Legally speaking, the source code IS the website. There is no difference. If I were to open up the website in a plain text editor, what would I see? It's the same as for any other program - the license resides in the code, not the 'output'. As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code. I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'. Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!
- geoelectric 11y ago
  The license says to "keep intact" all copyright notices. My layman's assumption would be that means scrubbing is a violation. It also says a lot of words that seem to come down to "if you put your copyright notice in, then their attribution has to be at least as prominent." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode -- section 4(b) All said, though, it's sketchy practice no matter what the license says literally. A main purpose of CC is to give you a license that can be followed common-sensibly. Playing "lawyer' with the wording isn't reciprocating the goodwill of the author.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    If the author also sells his license for "no attribution" then maybe he's not exactly playing by the CC ideals either...
    - geoelectric 11y ago
      I disagree--dual-licensing is absolutely a thing, as is white-labeling. The author is putting a price on hiding his involvement. Why is that not a valid thing to do?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 11y ago

Not the author of this or the original, but attribution doesn't mean it should be right on the page and in the same place as the original template. The attribution text is right in the source code, first thing you'll see.

linksbro 11y ago
Attribution is a fine line; removing the attribution from where it was in the template and plastering "All Rights Reserved" copyright over it is a very clear violation of the creative commons license. In some situations, it's difficult to place attribution along with the media, but in this case, it's not - it's a webpage - and having the attribution be in the source code is not really acceptable, because it's not reasonably accessible for someone looking for it. If you look at that page and only that page, what leads you to believe that this is built of off a CC-BY work? Nothing. Sure, you can add "for copyright and license information, visit this link" in the footer, with a link to the github readme page that has the attribution, but removing it all together and only leaving scraps of it in the source code is just careless, reckless misuse of the original author's work.
- chvid 11y ago
  The template author is selling an attribution free version of his template - if you click download it will say: "Need an attribution-free version? Check out Pixelarity, my latest and greatest side project that offers attribution-free usage of all of my templates, exclusive new templates, and support (from me) for just $19."
  - linksbro 11y ago
    Yeah, and this person didn't do that. Check the gh-pages branch. The license there indicates it is the CC-BY 3.0 version of the template. https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENS...
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  He's not selling a website or a template though. The "All Rights Reserved" refers to the product, ie. Tokamak, which he indeed owns. He didn't obfuscate the source, and indeed the attribution is the very first thing you see in the source (and when it comes to HTML, the source IS the website). And while he didn't comply 100% with the 'default' CC license (which reads that you should state the changes made), he did comply 100% with the 'rules' given by the author. He gave credit, and linked to the website, as well as the specific licensing terms given by the author. Tl;dr - since he's not selling a template, the copyright at the bottom obviously refers to his own product and not the web template. The attribution is in the correct spot, at the top of the source.
  - linksbro 11y ago
    What are the norms for attribution when it comes to software? You include a LICENSE file if you're distributing the source, or you display it in your software (like iPhones and Androids). What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image. What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page. The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      Legally speaking, the source code IS the website. There is no difference. If I were to open up the website in a plain text editor, what would I see? It's the same as for any other program - the license resides in the code, not the 'output'. As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code. I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'. Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!
geoelectric 11y ago
The license says to "keep intact" all copyright notices. My layman's assumption would be that means scrubbing is a violation. It also says a lot of words that seem to come down to "if you put your copyright notice in, then their attribution has to be at least as prominent." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode -- section 4(b) All said, though, it's sketchy practice no matter what the license says literally. A main purpose of CC is to give you a license that can be followed common-sensibly. Playing "lawyer' with the wording isn't reciprocating the goodwill of the author.
- coldtea 11y ago
  If the author also sells his license for "no attribution" then maybe he's not exactly playing by the CC ideals either...
  - geoelectric 11y ago
    I disagree--dual-licensing is absolutely a thing, as is white-labeling. The author is putting a price on hiding his involvement. Why is that not a valid thing to do?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]