"still"? It never was. If you copy a (copyrighted) UI in bulk, that's a copyright violation just like copying code in bulk. The legal metric is generally "sufficient height of creation", the actual interpretation depends on where you are.

▲

zarzavat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Copyrights on UIs are nebulous. You can't copyright the functional aspects of a UI, that's the domain of patents, yet the functional aspects are likely the parts you are most keen on protecting. Also you need to prove that they copied you and didn't come up with it independently.

▲

BikiniPrince 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I looked at those screen shots. The language is similar but it’s not verbatim. The is itself is just the usage of the same framework. Business logic can’t be copyrighted. Is it too close? I agree. Does it cross the legal test. I wouldn’t waste my money on a court battle.

	▲	eqvinox 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn't talking about a specific case, and "UI" is more than a single page. To be specific, I'm referring to the sum of text (incl. translations), graphics and layout on the entire product/application/etc. I agree the screenshots in the specific linked case - if that's all there is - are nowhere near enough.

▲

victorbjorklund 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It depends also what you mean with copy. The code has copyright but the rendered pixels don’t (other than if something like an image was created pixel by pixel). So if the code is different but the output looks the same it’s not copyright infringement (can still be trademark).

	▲	echoangle 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think that’s dependent on jurisdiction. This comes up with fonts where what you said applies in the US but in Europe, the actual visual result of the software also counts and is protected (afaik).