Hacker News Reader

Wow. I don't agree with this response at all. "Allow them to use the design for a small fee"?

The original site design was the product of careful branding, long hours of coding, and probably countless revisions: the point of all this work is to create something that uniquely represents the company.

Responding to piracy by "homogenizing" an original design isn't the answer.

The rest of the business world is definitely not that generous (trust me: if you steal an image from Getty Images, they don't let you get away with paying a "small fee"). Neither should OP.

The OP is a design house. Is this particular design the last drop of creative juice they have? I would think they can certainly evolve their site into another equally interesting design.

It's almost like what happens to Mercedes Benz. Companies like Mitsubishi shamelessly copy MBZ designs. They've been doing it for years. MBZ's answer is to continuously innovate.

Obsolete you own product.

so now you're saying they should change/evolve their design because other companies have blatantly ripped them off? it's not just "some design", it's their brand. if Mitsubishi put a MBZ logo on their car MBZ wouldn't "continuously innovate" on their logo.

Bingo.

Also, there's a legal concept called trade dress, which protects the signature elements of a product. Mitusibusi copies Mercedes, but only to point. And that point is defined by law. This law explains why the imitations are so pale, and why the markets for Mitsubishis and Mercedes have so little overlap.

That doesn't mean that Mercedes can stagnate. It's a design icon, after all, and has to fit within a larger sphere that is always changing. But protection for its brand does mean can move at a more considered and deliberate pace (good conditions for thoughtful, lasting design), then it could if competitors could make perfect copies with no appreciable latency.

Slow moving design is a feature, not a bug. You'll note that cars that hit on a relatively unchanging design that doesn't date itself quickly have higher resale values than those that don't (like, ahem, Mitsubishi).

Really? They can "evolve" their site? At what cost? Specifically, do you think it's a cost that's equal to or lower than the cost of simply waiting for others to do the hard work, then copying their advances? If you do, I can understand why you'd see your approach as a viable one. But if it turns out that origination is vastly more time and resource intensive than duplication (which, duh, it is), you'll find that the effort to stay a step ahead of the pirates becomes uneconomical very swiftly.

That's the whole point of patent and copyright law. They're defenses against locusts. The fact that these laws have been abused and need reform should not obscure their underlying value and purpose, which is actually becoming clearer than ever.

I suppose design is like fashion. Whatever you do will be emulated and plain ripped off pretty quickly so if you want to be seen as the hip trendsetter who gets to charge the highest prices you need to be constantly reinventing yourself to stay ahead of the curve.

The similarities are superficial at best. Fashion, almost by definition, is ephemeral. Design, on the other hand, strives for permanence.

"Constantly reinvention" is just total bullshit when you start talking about salt and pepper shakers. And so is the idea of "staying ahead of the curve" when doing so means a non-stop torrent of additions to landfills everywhere. Good designers get this. They're actually very resourceful people who are trying to make the world work better in ways both small and large. Squandering resources with a stream of pointless variations doesn't square with this ethos at all.

The difference between design and trash is that good design is what you hold onto for years, even generations. What the best designers strive for is the elegant solution, a perfect convergence of form and function that resists further change for as long as humanly possible.

Again, the opposite of fashion.

There are remarkably few web designs that have much permanence. Sites that were designed 5 years ago can look very dated today.

Since the web is a place where things are very easily copied, it stands to reason that good ideas will be emulated and this is to be expected.

It would seem quite contrary to the idea of the web to give a single entity a monopoly on laying out a page in a particular way.

It's true that websites and sofas have different refresh rates, but I'm guessing you didn't read the OP, check out the site in question, or click through to any of the examples he provided.

If you do, you'll see that we're not talking about general conventions here (e.g. the similar layouts of YouTube and Kickstarter pages). Nor is this "emulation" in many cases. It's just unvarnished theft (i.e. using the same copyright protected photos as backgrounds).

Best thing to do is to send the owner a Cease & Desist letter, and if they're based in the US, a threat to have the site pulled by the webhost under the DMCA in the event that the owner refuses to comply. It's diplomatic to give the owner a way to save face be acknowledging that that may also be getting victimized by an unscrupulous third party who is passing off the work of others as their own. But also note that this doesn't change the facts of the matter, and state that, one way or another, the site must come down immediately.

You shouldn't say or offer anything else until they call you back and offer you a chance to gauge their demeanor. Chances are good, they're going to be angry. Question is, at who? If it's with you (for ruining their day) then fuck 'em. They're not the kind of people you want anything to do with. Just tell them they have 24 hours to comply or you'll have the site pulled for violating copyrights, and that you won't release the claim unless they pay you several thousand dollars. However, if they're reasonable, they'll be angry with their vendor, apologetic with you, and then you can turn the exchange into a sales call.

Off-topic, but if Mitsubishi has been making any effort to copy Mercedes-Benz, then they have been doing a shockingly poor job of it. Certainly I cannot find any trace of an E-class in the unloved Galant, no SLK in the Eclipse... in fact it would not be that surprising to see Mitsubishi start pulling out of some foreign markets.

While they can, it doesn't mean they should.

Mitsubish are selling product, while this is a portfolio design and thus should require less attention while you work on clients.

The solution is not to blame the victims of the theft. Agreed that shaming isn't always the best idea either though.

I love how all the websites copying your design actually have a copyright mention at the bottom. The nerve is unbelievable! Beyond that I agree with the "obsolete your own design approach", and, however fun adding stuff to other's websites might be, that would certainly open you up to a suit, as you couldn't pretend you didn't know. That being said, if some customers paid top dollars for what is essentially your design, only not to you, that is a huge loss for you. I'd definitely try and settle with the end customers amiably in this case, or sue if they behave like assholes, and they can then sue the dev or web agency they picked themselves.

Get a life and get used to it. Overall its just a design, you think its great, and at least a few agreed on it and copied it.

There is no copyright on web pages. Web pages are there to be seen and thus their source to be copied. By even watching your page its in my cache now. I could copy it and use it.

If you where a little bit smarter some .js code might have protected for easy copying, but you didnt do that, who to blame ? you perhaps?

"Just a design"

"Just a work of art"

"Just a musical composition"

"Just a book"

"Just a piece of software"

"Just a photograph"

I don't think folks should be able to steal these things (or anything) just because they're "easy to copy". I also don't think that adding more DRM to the world (ie. "some .js code") is the answer.

"Get a life and get used to it" Bit tough no? OP is only calling them out!

Just because it's possible to steal something, you/society should allow it to happen? Did I misinterpret what you said, or is this what you're saying?

If the GP is advocating that ideas and their expressions shouldn't be 'private' if expressed publicly, then comparing it to stealing is incorrect.

> Just because it's possible to steal something, you/society should allow it to happen?

A closer comparison would be: you heard me tell a story. You don't think society should allow you to tell it to someone else because I 'own' it, and to tell someone else is to 'steal' from me.

Err, no. He used the word copyright. Somehow you translated that into stealing. You did, definitely, misinterpret what was said.

You can spend your life arguing over who copied whom and by how much - or you can accept the flattery, get on and do the next thing.

What if I don't want to be "flattered"? I don't really see anything flattering about someone copying one of my ideas when I don't want them to copy it.

You seem to be using a different definition to the word "flattery" than any I know. Being copied is inherently flattering whether you want them to copy you or not.

Flattery is a two-way act to me, why else did you use the word? You basically said "accept that someone copied you against your wishes and just ignore it".

I can see your point generally, but in this case, I can't see how being copied is anything other than flattering. It means the idea was good.

Regards your second sentence, that is what I'm saying. A large company that's put lots of resources into something fighting of another company who "stolen" their idea, while tedious, makes some sense. For an individual, I can't see how it's worth the time, stress or money to worry about copyright.

trust me: if you steal an image from Getty Images, they don't let you get away with paying a "small fee"

That's because the product of Getty Images is the image. You're not infringing on their branding, you're taking their actual product. Apples and oranges.

Not apples and oranges if the OP's business is design

> "There's an outside possibility that they have no clue that their web designers have done this."

I thought that too but of all the sites listed, only one is not some kind of digital/creative/design/etc agency. I'm more forgiving of the one company that may have contracted out their website but not really for the others who should know better.

Edit: I doubt shaming would really achieve anything (other than catharsis for the OP).

I'm not against your general point. But take this website:

http://dapaticalglobal.com/

This is a case of a design company that basically ripped off the design of another design company. They used almost exactly the same sub-title on the first page. As for the bottom page, it is the same, word for word. I mean, they didn't even bother changing it. What do you think the OP should do? Call it's competitors and tell them that they should pay a small fee for ripping them off?

Again, I agree with your general statement, but I think that all of the companies involved in design, marketing (or any other creative business) that copied this design deserve being called on.

It is terrible that they even call themselves a design company. If they are willing to blatantly rip off another design for their own branding - imagine their poor clients.

"Shaming them is a bad idea, at least as a first move. Seek-out and contact the owners of these businesses. Point out what you have discovered. There's an outside possibility that they have no clue that their web designers have done this. They might actually feel rather embarrassed to learn so."

You're just suggesting a different form of shaming :)

Being passively shamed as the OP suggests might be taken better than direct shaming, I imagine. Granted, either attempt might be less satisfying than one expects, but passive attempts at least let one go on with their day with less expectations for interaction and follow-up.

His approach appears to have worked, 4/5 of the websites are down.

It is interesting to see how the community reacts when someone steals their work. There are some good suggestions (e.g. the parent here) like contacting the owners of the offending sites politely.

Quite a few of the other comments seem pretty malicious in nature. Like serving up javascript which behaves mischievously. It doesn't seem to matter to these people if the site owners were victims of bad and lazy designers. (Never mind the fact that the original design is not that original.)

I can't believe that almost the same people then go on to rage and demand, more or less in spirit, everything else be free and open. (academic papers, iOS, music etc) Free, open and being kind are rules which are good to apply to others. Isn't it?

Folks, the above comment is the best way to go about it.

(Pasting an earlier top-level comment of mine as it seems to have been deluged under the anger.)

I think the difference is that they're making a direct profit from copying, rather than just sharing knowledge.

I understand that there is a difference. What I have difficulty understanding is the semi-vitriolic hate.

From a designer's perspective: design has an element of personal "style". It takes a lot of hard work to develop your own aesthetic, which makes it highly frustrating when someone lazily swipes it and passes it off as their own.

>" everything else be free and open."

Not, open source is not the same thing as piracy, or plagiarism... in fact is the opposite thing

Copyright and proper atributtion to the creator of the original work is covered in (all?) open source licenses and it is expected to be guaranteed and clearly stated in all derived works. This is not the case here.

I was not talking about open source in particular...

This is true. But some people ignore the e-mails and calls, or lie, or both—at which point shame is an excellent strategy. My family runs a grant writing consulting firm, and we've had people rip us off too—now, when they rip us off, we call them out too: http://blog.seliger.com/2009/07/03/fake-grant-writers-spamme...

I agree. Even for design agencies and web shops, it can be a difficult task to work on your own site sometimes with client work being the top priority. I've seen first hand web agencies basically cookie-cutting other sites that offer similar services. Which is silly, especially if they want to stand out.

Now in this case, I think you have every right to feel upset that they pretty much jacked your whole website... in some cases even the raw HTML and CSS. Some of those examples didn't even change anything and almost all used your icons.

I do agree with @robomartin though, might wanna take the nice-guy approach first and give them the opportunity to admit their wrongdoings. Good luck, your site looks kick-ass by the way.

i've caught one of my design employees copying stock stuff and claiming it was his own work (and fired him for it), so yes it's very much possible for the owners/managers to not know that the site is a copy.

i'm not sure your other suggestions are that great, and probably public critisism isn't that big of a deal actually (as expresed by PT barnum, all news is good news, or in this case, good SEO)