Legal implications of redistributing web-content?

Question

If you have a site that uses Javascript with no mention of a license in the Javascript, is it legal to take that Javascript, package it, and redistribute it?

I'm looking to write a Google Chrome extension for Stackoverflow -- I've recently requested permissions on master.js to eliminate this ambiguity; but, now I'm curious if I had to do that. SO uses notify.message() to create those top-down message scrollers. I'd like to rip this out and use it in my plugin. Unfortunately, Google Chrome forces me to download it and package it with the plugin. The plugin gets access to the DOM, but runs isolated from the webpages's scripts.

In essence, I'm distributing the same copy that their servers are distributing. I'm not sure how this goes down -- certainly you can run a reverse proxy and cache the JS. How is this really different? I'm going to be running their JS, on their site except in a way specified by me. For that matter, how is this really any different than the browser opting to cache without an explicit caching directive in the header?

The same effect can be achieved with Greese monkey (for this component of the plugin). I'm really just working around the implications of the Google Chrome plugin security model.

Any ideas?

Answer 1

Copyright is automatic in most jurisdictions. If you haven't been given explicit permission it is safer to assume that you aren't allowed.

Answer 2

I think the fact that you have to download a copy of the javascript and package it with your code, regardless how you are using it, is where the issues would arise. If you were just referencing the code from their servers it would be legally OK - though they may have issues with you using their bandwidth and code in such a manor and could block you from accessing it in such a way.

The lack of copyright in the code file itself doesn't mean it is not copyrighted at all. As Dan Dyer said, copyright is automatic in most jurisdictions. As a result to take a copy and repackage it for distribution you would need permission to do so as the documentation in the file itself didnt already give it to you.

the best bet is to assume that they dont want you to do anything with the file, and get permission from them before you do anything. This goes for code, graphics, sounds, etc.

Answer 3

1. IANAL

2. But a lawyer, if you paid one, would probably talk to you about managing risk. I think both your legal obligations (you would want to look at both copyright and terms of use) and your risk of getting sued depend more on your use case than anything else. Are you going to sell this Chrome Extension you're building? Or use it to compete against StackOverflow and re-direct people to your own Q&A site? If you were building this Chrome Extension just for you and your family to more efficiently browse the SO site, it's hard to imagine your getting sued and it's hard to imagine your losing if you were.

It's worth looking at the Stack Overflow legal statement.

The Network and its contents are intended solely for the use of the Network Subscribers and may only be used in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. All materials displayed or performed on the Network, including, but not limited to text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, and animations (collectively, “Content”) (other than Content posted by Subscriber (“Subscriber Content”)) are the property of Stack Overflow and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international copyright laws.

The Network is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions, and other copyright laws. Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, Subscriber may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, upload, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in this Section), create derivative works based on, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content, software, materials, or Services in whole or in part.

This seems to explicitly rule out derivative works; on the other hand, is your use case much like personal use? That exemption is there to rule out your violating copyright law by browser caching or any similar technology which they obviously don't want to be illegal, and I suspect it would apply to a lot of personal use of browser extensions as well. Also, consider the factors for fair use: How much code are you taking? For what purpose? Are you competing with the original site, attempting to make money off of their hard labor, or abusing their server resources? Unlikely, but are you using it for scholarly purposes, criticism or parody?

More generally (and this gets back to the question of risk), are you using their code in a way that they would like or one they would disapprove of? Asking permission is clearly the polite thing to do, and it will also help resolve some of these questions.