Legal action between ZAM and Curse results in dismissal
by Mike Schramm 
Feb 19th 2009 at 1:30PM
And then, in January of this year, the case was dismissed completely by a judge. We've also seen a copy of the order for dismissal, and from what it says, both sides wanted out: "Pursuant to the parties' stipulation for dismissal, the court hereby dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice." We don't have any information, however, why the case was suddenly dismissed, but there may have been an agreement made between the two parties -- either money changed hands or WoWDB offered to change its look (as you can see, there's still many similarities between the two sites). Or, as a third option, ZAM just decided it wasn't worth fighting -- according to the comments and activity on both sites, WoWDB doesn't seem to be a serious threat to Wowhead.
We've contacted both sides for comment, and we'll let you know if we hear anything from either one. On the front of it, this looks like ZAM was merely covering themselves -- they filed suit just in case, but never found cause to follow through. But there may be some other agreement between these two companies that lead to the case's dismissal.
Filed under: Items, Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Economy
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
SeanOr101 Feb 19th 2009 1:34PM
Haha, Plagurism is bad
tony Feb 19th 2009 1:38PM
I'm a lawyer and people usually do this to preserve their rights to bring something later. There is usually a ticking statute of limitations from when the infringement occurs, so if you bring suit, you preserve the rights to bring it again, where as here, you agree to dismiss without prejudice. Though its more likely they just agreed to a settlement of money and went on their merry ways... all of which would be confidential.
Auto Feb 19th 2009 1:45PM
I stopped using Curse after they copied Wowhead.
One thing I cannot stand is being un-original!
Psy Feb 19th 2009 11:24PM
That's exactly why I stopped using them. I only use Curse Addons when I absolutely have to, otherwise I use WoW Interface or WoWUI.
But them making WoWDB was like over the line for me, as a web designer. I saw their site and immediately compared it to Wowhead. In which, doing so wasn't hard. Because it was/is EXACTLY THE SAME.
It actually offends me tbh, since I know how hard it is to make the layout for websites, the programming behind it and the patience and effort that goes into it. And then some bastard comes and takes it? Screw that, I would've sued to the goddamn GROUND!
Jessica Feb 19th 2009 1:49PM
You know, I use both Wowhead and WoWDB, and yes, they are similar, but (until now of course) I didn't jump onto the idea of plagiarism. I use WoWHead when the quest text just wont do it and I need user comments to help me on me way. Whereas I use WoWDB to find stuff: quest givers, MOB locations, you name it. *shrug* So I'd be happy if they would keep both up, kthxbai
Flairy Feb 19th 2009 1:54PM
You know that quest givers, mob locations, zone info, quest lists, recipes, and more can all be found on wowhead too, right?
Jessica Feb 19th 2009 3:47PM
Yes, but I find it much easier on WoWDB because I dont have to muddle through all the player comments (the same reason I left Thottbot). It's just a matter of preference really.
Todd Feb 19th 2009 1:48PM
This is much more than a case of stolen identity, it seems as if WoWDB literally lifted the whole WoWHead database.
gearwhizz Feb 19th 2009 2:36PM
I wonder if Thottbot will get on board and sue them both for stealing its ideas?
The best part about this law-suit is it made me have a look at curse's database and I like it so much I daresay I won't go back to Wowhead.
Kemikalkadet Feb 19th 2009 2:51PM
You can't have copyright over the idea of an item database that can look up npcs/items etc, nor would the idea of an addon that crawls through game files to update the site fall under copyright. However, the original code that is used to seek out new items and post them to the website would be copyrighted, so if wowhead completely copied thottbots addons' code that would be a breach. You can also copyright the look and design of a site, which is what the case is here. You can't say that thott looks anything like wowhead, although they do the same thing, in the same way that Sony and Panasonic both make TV's.. they have copyright over the design and look of their TV's but you can't say either one has a copyright of the whole concept of a television.
sphynx Feb 19th 2009 2:54PM
ZAM owns both Thottbot and Wowhead. Don't think they're going to sue themselves for having two similar sites.
sphynx Feb 19th 2009 2:58PM
Wait, make that three: they own Allakhazam too.
Ryan Feb 19th 2009 2:38PM
Most likely the case was settled out of court, hence the dismissal being requested by both parties.
jasonramsland Feb 19th 2009 2:52PM
Tony is correct with one stipulation: this is not likely the result of a settlement agreement, as generally the settling defendant will insist upon a dismissal WITH prejudice, barring a future claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. It's probably preservation of a claim from being dismissed by the court on the court's own motion, or dismissal because they decided to give up, that it wasn't worth it.
@Gearwhizz,
Ideas are not copyrightable, only expressions thereof. Consequently, since there is little similarity in the expressions of wowhead and thottbot, there is no copyright infringed. Whereas between wowhead and wowdb there was not even an apparent modicum of creative investiture in the newer, between wowhead and thottbot there are significant differences.
el Feb 19th 2009 3:09PM
WoWDB's traffic is minimal for a mainstream WoW site: Quantcast (direct measurement) lists about a quarter of a million people and 2 million page views per month. For a gaming site, that's well under $1000 of advertising revenue a month. There are simply not enough zeros on that figure to warrant legal action.
(But very interesting that ZAM felt threatened enough to initially react through the courts.)
BooDizz Feb 19th 2009 7:52PM
Are you the real El? O.O
DragYn Feb 19th 2009 3:53PM
It'll be interesting to see if this actually drives MORE traffic to WoWDB. I had honestly forgotten about it until now, heh.
FF Feb 19th 2009 4:03PM
The key quote from the order is "without prejudice." As the other attorney above pointed out, an agreement to dismiss without prejudice usually means one or both parties want to reserve the right to make amended (or additional) claims at a later date. If money has changed hands, dismissing "with prejudice" is usually required before the check is tendered.
Some one Feb 19th 2009 4:55PM
Although it's obvious WOWDB is a copy of the structure of Wowhead, I just can't imagine that this would be enough for a successful legal action.
Wowhead has a very plain style (almost no images) and a intuitive structure. Obviously Wowhead copied many parts from other sites as well. For example: Did anyone notice the front page looks like Google's? Or the search box like the one from Digg? Or the tabs like YouTube's? Or the typical article style of MediaWiki's Monobook (although it's GPL)? Wowhead makes use of other ideas too and combines them.
I wonder how far a webdesigner may go if he 'borrows' some ideas from other sites. Frankly, I think it's stupid to file a lawsuit for this.
Tyrsenus Feb 19th 2009 5:22PM
An important distinction to make is that Wowhead isn't in direct competition with Google, Digg, and Youtube.
You are correct in that Wowhead (along with countless other websites) has adopted conventions such as the AJAX search suggestions, the tabbed interface, etc., which are part of the reason I believe it's so successful - there's no need to reinvent the wheel, and users will "feel at home" if they see similarities between websites they already know. On the other hand, web designers must be careful not to mimic every detail - and especially not copying code.
AFAIK, in order to prove copyright infringement, it must be proven that the code was stolen, not merely replicating it in function or appearance alone. On the other hand, Wowhead's team put time and effort into designing the interface which became translated into revenue, which Curse copied and profited from without payment or acknowledgment.