Hey, Please have a look at this website: This The first website from it's kind was: This I want to open a website with similar service, now my question about copyrighting is that: Am i allowed to make almost the same design as the first website? Am i allowed to make almost the same text? Thanks in advance!
If your question is that important, ask in the legal issues forum where it belongs. Copyright is not the same thing as copywriting.
i think you can do that... no problem in that... Just check both the site... they dont have any kind of copyright protection written in footers... so you do it... very easily...
That's terrible advice (and precisely why the OP needs to post in the legal issues area and not here). You don't have to put a copyright notice on your site to have a copyright. Once it's written, it's protected by copyright, and you can't edit it or create derivative works from it without the original copyright holder's consent.
see this way... The copyright includes if the content is made original who will check that if that particular site has not copied for else network that's why... not given any copyright information.... Not every content mentioned in the website or design of its is unique always... that's why its intended to use copyright information if that is unique content developed dedicatedly for...
The rule is simple... you can't edit someone else's work and call it your own without their permission. They're not required to put up a copyright notice. You can't assume something isn't protected legally. That's really all there is to it.
Actually, you can assume something is protected legally. Unless there is a notice that indicates the work is in the public domain or can otherwise be used freely, the default is that an image or text is copyrighted. Automatic copyright is the default in the United States, countries in the European Community, much of the middle east and Asia (including China, Japan, India and Pakistan). You have to assume that you cannot use the material unless there is an indication otherwise.
I know. I should have noted that that I was just expanding on what you said, for people who want "proof".