LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI
github.com
github.com
Some icons appear to be heavily inspired by LV.
Here are three icons (circled) from Flat-UI: http://i.imgur.com/xDDULcG.png
You can see that the gears and news icons do bear some similarity to LV's versions: http://dribbble.com/shots/800428-LayerVault-icon-set-for-del... and http://imgur.com/rli5IVU (the latter via http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332741)
In addition, LV claims that Flat-UI ripped off a number of other icons from dribble.com, such as this clock and map (Flat-UI above, originals below): http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K (original dribble links: http://dribbble.com/shots/695458-Nasa-Playbook-Icons and http://dribbble.com/shots/877061-Map-2013).
Finally, the color schemes have been claimed to be identical: http://pixxel.co/feed/layervault-issues-dmca-takedown
LV appears to be confused as to what constitutes copyright infringement. None of these icons are actually copies of the original, and even if they were LV would not have a right to issue a DMCA takedown for the ones they didn't own.
This seems to be a massive PR blunder for the LV guys. They could have put up a blog post enumerating how many of their (and others') designs were ripped off (which is not the same thing as copyright infringement) and probably garnered some internet sympathy. Now, by misusing the much-hated DMCA takedown notice they've positioned themselves in the same camp with all the DMCA bullies we have grown to loathe.
It's not even a rip-off. The basic pattern for the icons is insanely generic, and the execution is clearly different. The color scheme is a very common one.
It bears a resemblance as much as one black leather shoe bears a resemblance to another black leather shoe. It's not even worth making a passing remark about, let alone going nuclear with a DMCA.
LayerVault are copyright trolls and bullies.
DMCAs shouldn't be filed lightly (unless you have the legal resources of the RIAA/MIAA/etc to dissuade your targets from retaliation).
Not a lawyer, and haven't talked to a lawyer? Don't file a DMCA no matter how butthurt you are about being 'copied'. Just because it is relatively easy to do doesn't mean you should do so in the spur of the moment. It is a Real Legal Thing with Real Ramifications, and this is good because it limits the amount to which bad actors can abuse it, but it also means you should be really sure you're the victim of copyright violations prior to using it yourself.
Or, alternatively, they might realize what a mistake taking this approach was and never do it again. That's what I think is "highly likely" here.
It doesn't seem like he's learned anything, considering he's making jokes about it on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309415721941753857
People who drag others into expensive, unwarranted legal situations are a blight on the entrepreneurial community.
No, responding to and dealing with a DMCA notice takes 5 minutes and a couple keystrokes. You send a counternotice, a simple e-mail you can copy and paste from any number of examples. There are no attorneys fees until there's an actual lawsuit, and there's never going to be one here.
Showing that they were incorrect does not show they are a troll.
The term refers to entities who are in the business of enforcing patents they aren't generally even using in the marketplace. This is distinct from someone who actually thinks their work is being affected, as is the case here (even though in this case it seems to be overblown).
That makes you the worst kind of troll out there, a knowingly lying one.
It's a solemn legal claim, with consequences if they lie.
And the people claimed against can file a counter claim.
(DMCA is a terrible law, and needs to be fixed.)
Maybe I've had my head in the sand for far too long, but I had never heard of LayerVault until today, and I know them now for all the wrong reasons.
I find it somewhat silly that no matter what trend you follow, someone will always be there, waiting to pounce.
This isn't the mid 2000's, "First" posts were childish back then, and "First" claims are the same now.
...and seriously at the colour schemes. The flat colour trend is basically the same as a new art movement (it's only pastel colours made more vibrant). I predict that with the current trend being Real -> Flat, the next phase will be a new form of Pointillism.
If we really wanted to be picky, you could draw comparisons between the way that LV do human faces (see bottom of the Tour page) and the old Mac OS logo.
If Flat UI had really stolen assets, that would be one thing.
But aping a design isn't the same thing as stealing. See also: Apple v. Samsung.
Hope it wasn't the basis for the DMCA takedown...
Flat UI has more than 20 colors. LV just 7?...
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2790/4414564409_974b828fbc.jpg
-Most often done by... Jonathan Ive
2) Has anyone visited LayerVault's site?
Does anyone think that they invented all of the styling, color schemes, magnifying effects, icon styling out of thin air?
Anyone seen google do something similar? (looks waaaaay better than LV old site BTW)
3) If you wanted to shame someone, the best way to do so would have been a blog post...
See OXO v.s. Quirky http://goo.gl/Zccse
4) It's impossible for an idea to be truly unique/novel. They are always tangents/leaps based on a previous discoveries or insight.
Looks like the pitchforks are out over on HN.
It was pretty straightforward. Our reaction was "Cool, a flat UI theme" to "Wait, this looks familiar" to "Wait, are those our illustrations?".
I contacted the designmodo people over email, because that's the right way to handle this. The owner was being stubborn at first and refused to admit wrongdoing. At that point, I submitted the DMCA request. Eventually, he removed the most blatant icons which (in my eyes) is an admission of guilt.
They even managed to kinda lift the old DN icon :) http://imgur.com/3zoKuvH
If you have some intimiate knowledge of LayerVault's UI (which their designer apparently does), the similarities are a bit more than striking. That's not a huge issue until you release everything together - the icons, the colors, the UI elements, whatever.
We give a lot of our stuff away for free. We put a lot of our projects on cosmos.layervault.com, we write about interesting concepts we've come up with and include the code on our blog, whatever. This isn't about thinking we own "Flat Design" or being mad that there's some other design out there with a similar aesthetic.
Allan has done neither, and still hasn't done so in his tweets or this post over on his bubbly walled garden. A few simple side-by-side screenshots would have sufficed and put the court of public opinion squarely on his side. He may be completely in the right but his approach left him open to the "pitchforks" he's so dismissively bemoaning.
DMCA notices are to enforce against copyright infringement only, not as a tool for organizations to abuse in order to remove content which they think is "too similar", if this was the case, businesses would simply send their competition DMCA notices for being "too similar."
He also stated that because DesignModo "removed some icons" which LayerVault thought were the most blatantly infringing somehow implies guilt, as opposed to just someone trying to handle a dispute in a friendly manner.
I'm not a designer, and I haven't heard of LayerVault until now, however unless some very damning evidence is presented, I feel like every statement he's making is essentially digging a deeper grave.
EDIT: Having looked at the examples of the claimed infringement which are now surfacing, this is even further evidence that this is misuse of the DMCA. At most, this would be a civil / trademark dispute.
Web folks these days have some strange ideas about copyright, particularly as it relates to an overall 'site feel'. Unfortunately, this 'site feel' is not a single work, in the same way that you couldn't successfully keep others from making art in your 'style'.
The proper way to get a monopoly on a 'feel' is with one of those ridiculous design patents. That'd be inexcusable, because these patents mean nothing except that you intend to spend a lot of time making lawsuits based on poorly examined, impossibly wide patents.
Noun Project vs Layer Vault vs Flat UI
If anyone notice other similar icons, I can update image with side by side comparison.
*Thanks to fellow HNers for the links to the images. I just stuck it all together side by side.
Edit: Updated with more samples.
From my initial reading, it sounded like images were outright copied, or copied and slightly altered. That is hardly the case in these examples.
If there aren't any stronger examples than these, then LayerVault wouldn't seem to have much of a basis for all this.
Is this a prank or art piece troll?
Yes, a full explanation would be nice too.
Here, we have a DMCA takedown notice that lacks two of the necessary elements: specific identification of the copyrighted work infringed as well as the infringing material.
It doesn't take much to meet these elements, which together would have also allayed public concerns. Barring that, however, it's not a valid notice. As a result, Github has no duty to act as the courts have explicitly affirmed.
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15
I doubt this case will escalate to that, but at the very least I think I can safely say LayerVault is the loser here. I was only scarcely aware of LayerVault previously with no specific opinion and now after hearing the claims and seeing the supposed "proof" I have a negative opinion. And for what gain?
Sure, couldn't possibly be that he just wanted to do whatever it took to get you to leave him alone.
Also, the Flat-UI guy also copied other artists on dribbble. http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K
From http://drbl.in/eXkk, and http://drbl.in/gmsD
I'm not saying these are in copyright violation, merely examples he has copied prior work.
Here is the definition of copy.. "A thing made to be similar or identical to another."
The worked linked to was not original. It is similar and identical to other designers work.
Here is the definition of copy.. "A thing made to be similar or identical to another."
The worked linked to was not original. It is similar and identical to other designers work.
It's a clock - how many unique ways are there to design it? It's a folded up map with pins in it.
He moved the hour/minutes hands, changed the colors and shadows, used different continents in the map.
Apple paid $21 million for a clock design after first adopting your attitude: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202...
Copyright means you literally copied the design. Are you maybe confusing copyright and trademark? With trademark, you can get in trouble for creating brand confusion, which has a more to do with the look and feel than the actual copy.
Deleted comment
Later on, after the pitchforks had showed up, he tweeted the following: "It's neat that someone made a flat ui kit"[2]
That tune sure changed quickly!
LayerVault needs to illustrate their case with clear-cut examples or else they are coming across as ye olde IP Troll and thus deserving the collective pitchfork stabbing that DMCA hammer wielding requires.
Noun Project: http://thenounproject.com/noun/newspaper/#icon-No6346
Flat-UI's newspaper icon: http://i.imgur.com/9TKbKNl.png
If anything, the Designer News icon is much more similar to the Noun Project's.
All of these icons are similar to innumerable newspaper icons, including several at the Noun Project alone.
'He kinda copied it, so we slapped him with DMCA. We kinda copied a free icon, but it's okay.'
They just aren't the same icon. The visual metaphor all these icons rely on is decades old. It's the details that matter.
There might be some ground for trademark infringement if the original icon was important, but no way is that a copyright issue.
We can discuss on how many differences but it will end on nothing. I can express that, 2 o 3 differences are not enough to claim "different" and you can claim than 1 will not be enough too.
To me, they're clearly wrong. But if the guy copied the art and pasted it, that's another story.
Also, this Allan guy whoever he is, is dripping with self-importance.
Trademarks can legally protect a particular style, but trademark law isn't enforced through DMCA requests.
https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309346292902014976 https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309350351054716929
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332635
To my eyes, it does not look like 'blatant copying.' The icons look similar, but so do many others. If LV's evidence comes down to "looks too similar, but isn't actually a copy," then the DMCA is not the avenue for pursuing this.
Those tweets sound like classic whining in face of collective pitchfork stabbing.
You can't issue a DCMA based on sort of look a likes. Or everyone would be DCMAing everyone else.
So the entire DCMA is invalid.
TLDR:
Noun Project vs Layer Vault vs Flat UI
If anyone notice other similar icons, I can update image with side by side comparison.
Thanks to fellow HNers for the links to the images. I just stuck it all together side by side.
Edit: Updated with more samples.
http://dribbble.com/shots/800428-LayerVault-icon-set-for-del...
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22talking+head%22+bubble...
The Noun Project also has a profile speech version, though with curved lines instead of the bubble: http://thenounproject.com/noun/speech/#icon-No1202
Flat UI's version might have been partially inspired by LayerVault, but it's far from identical. In fact, the Flat UI head is very similar to the Noun Project's head, similar to how the LayerVault's newspaper is similar to the Noun Project's.
Doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you're going to have everything that potentially infringes LV's work you might as well put the stupid ones too. Plus it's now missing which makes it a bit suspicious (though the replacement is far better IMO which would explain the head's absence too)
You can use Chilling Effects Counter-Notification generator to automate the process:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
For those who are unfamiliar with DMCA notices, in short:
1. Content Provider Receives DMCA
2. Content Provider must act 'expeditiously' to remove content which is claimed to be infringing
3. Individual has an opportunity to submit a counter notification to their content provider, in which case the content can be reinstated after 10 business days regardless of the other parties claims. (Unless an injunction is obtained.)
4. Any further action is only by legal means (court injunction)
Disclaimer: IANAL (yet)
Generally:
- If the content provider is outside of the United States, DMCA is not valid whatsoever. However, some organizations, especially in English speaking countries, will honor it simply as a notice of infringement.
- If the individual sending the complaint is outside the United States, but the content provider is within the US, usually the content provider will cooperate anyway to protect themselves from legal obligation under Safe Harbor provisions.
- If the end user receiving the complaint is outside the United States and the content provider is within the US then the content provider should still honor the counter notice and would be covered by Safe Harbor provisions. I'm not sure on the specifics of this, however you must at minimum consent to the jurisdiction of US Federal Law for any further actions.
For the most part, the content provider / hosting company will do what is in their best interest to legally safeguard themselves, with little regard for end user rights. Generally speaking, the larger the company the moreso this applies.
Github seems like a reasonable organization, and if you submit a counter notification in valid format they should act accordingly.
Also, I see the Chilling Effects URL is getting hammered, here's a static version which you can modify: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html
While unrelated to this issue specifically, something which is interesting to note is that in a several year old paper from Vanderbilt University, they specifically mention a provision dealing with enforcing the DMCA on foreign websites. While this provision has never been used to my knowledge it does exist and is quite scary considering the implications:
While direct action against a foreign site is not possible in U.S. courts, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) allows courts to order the blocking of infringing sites. Section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii) (the “Foreign Site Provision”) permits an order to restrain an Internet service provider (“ISP”) from providing access to a “specific, identified, online location outside the United States.” Therefore this provision, with some limitations, may be used to block U.S. access to infringing foreign sites.
esp. when the target audience consists of developers/designers
EDIT: I tried to cross-post this on Designer News, but it turns out they're invite-only. Can someone do me the honour?
While I know it's pretty de rigueur on HN to assume that anyone who issues a DMCA takedown is evil/a troll/an idiot who doesn't understand the internet, it doesn't mean that some of them aren't being filed because their copyright is actually being violated.
Until there's more evidence either from LayerVault that DesignModo has used their assets, or from DesignModo that they haven't - something beyond DesignModo just shouting "they're lying!" in any case, perhaps it's best to withhold judgement for the time being.
Looking at the top comment in the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332398), it seems that DesignModo lifted some of their illustrations straight from the LayerVault site.
They have proven to be an closed elitist circle and they go against the web openness nature of the web and development.
All of their assets were created in-house by DesginModo's designers..
I would say that is the issue in a nutshell. LayerVault is claiming they are the exclusive rights-holders, yet absolutely nothing in Flat-UI is the same as anything on LayerVault's public site.
The only possible angle remaining would be if LayerVault had a bunch of these elements behind their paywall... something tells me that's not the case.
Edit: Alright, I admit the colour Turquoise is used on both pages. Still, I'm fairly confident turquoise boxes (of differing shapes!) are not copyrightable.
LayerVault is obviously pissed that a design similar to their unique design will be used by amateur Bootstrappers all over the web.
You can't patent Colors / Helvetica Neue / Rounded Corner Squares. It just reeks of tactics similar to patent trolls.
I think a while back there was blog theme used that was similar to Svbtle, but there was no take down notice or such nonsense. It generated a decent discussion and conversations about something that's too close in style.
Look at @layervault on Twitter, they are just getting destroyed right now. Even by designers, their main target audience.
If they went along the lines like 'Hey, this is pretty similar to our design. We think it's cool we inspired you but can you deviate it from us a bit more or re-name the project to like Layervault Bootstrap?' I mean why not - have your name in the same conversation as Twitter Bootstrap!
A total botched and missed opportunity.
Allan says Designmodo was not being cooperative in emails on the issue, and I think that's the point where you take it to a blog post with examples of the case you're trying to make, rather than forcing Github to shut down an entire project that goes outside of just the illustrations in question.
Their approach seems less about actually proving their worth by focusing on their product and ignoring outside "competition", and more about trying to shut down those that they feel are a threat to them. Not sure what exactly that says about them or the confidence they have in their own product, but it's a bad attitude to have towards innovation and inspiration.
They look visually similar. As well as dozens of other pieces/sites.
Is this an abuse of process I should actually care about or is it just a "who did what?" spit between estranged developers?
They have a design in a style that's not quite originally theirs-- they've seemingly abused the DMCA to have github remove a completely unrelated UI kit in the same style.
The two items in question are as follows: https://layervault.com/ http://designmodo.github.com/Flat-UI/
Flat UI has (seemingly) been designed and developed completely independently, having nothing to do with LayerVault. No artwork is derived, based-upon, designed by the same artist, etc.
You should care about this because the process is biased towards the accuser. Given no chance to rebut, Flat UI is removed, and disabled. Despite providing his side of the story in the commit comments https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/735e17614cca63102b8414..., the author now has to write a formal counter-takedown notification, and the repository will still be offline for up to 10 days (https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown)
Furthermore, 'designers' and HN users should care because LayerVault runs a 'Hacker News' for designers at https://news.layervault.com/. LayerVault is not the right entity to run this site after these DMCA shenanigans (if in fact no infringement has taken place).
Before we start yelling about "abuse of process" though, we might want to wait for more information about what's actually going on here. It would hardly be the first time one small company has used another company's assets without permission, so perhaps we should see what LayerVault has to say before getting so worked up.
10 days can be a long time to have stuff go unexpectedly offline.
| the host has to restore the removed
| content within a certain time period
Today, LayerVault [1], a company that makes 'github for designers,' sent a DCMA github a DCMA Takedown Notice [2], claiming that they own the exclusive rights to "the artwork contained within Flat UI."
The creators of Flat UI are disputing this in the linked comment thread, but we do not know if they've actually sent a DCMA Counter-Notification [3].
Incidentally, Flat UI's page probably did violate somebody's copyright, but not necessarily LayerVault's. No, they used part of Big Buck Bunny [4] without proper attribution [5] under its Creative Commons license [7].
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321603
[2]: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/735e17614cca63102b8414...
[3]: https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown
[4]: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/
LayerVault (https://layervault.com/) are a company that provide a version control system for design work.
And did Flat UI derive artwork from LayerVault? Is there a connection between the developers? Did they work with the same artist? Certainly some of the icons on the two sites look similar, though I don't see any obvious duplication.
A critically important step in any hot blooded DMCA freakout is verifying whether or not infringement took place. The letter (frustratingly) doesn't point to any specifics but it does at least allege infringement. I can't find a clear denial in the linked thread. So again: should I be upset about this?
LayerVault is a vocal proponent of the "Flat UI" approach and uses it almost as a signature look and feel for their product. In the follow up discussions, the blog post author has said that no post or discussion fully understands what he meant [2].
I can't read the takedown letter or discussion where I am (for some reason github is blocked). But based on what I've seen, the kit is similar to LayerVault's approach to employing Flat UI. That combined with the blogpost, I wouldn't be surprised if LayerVault felt that their look and feel was infringed upon. Obviously, this doesn't mean that they actually were infringed upon in the eye of the law, even if the kit was derived from LayerVault.
As a designer, I can sympathize with LayerVault's issue with the kit (I'm making assumptions), but with such a design, I really wonder how valid their complaint is within the law.
[1]http://layervault.tumblr.com/post/32267022219/flat-interface... [2]Designer News thread that I have no link to at the moment.
Check what the framework developer said: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/735e17614cca63102b8414...
"he said that he: "I am the exclusive rights holder for the artwork contained within Flat UI". Liar!."
Have we established exactly which elements are allegedly infringing copyright? I've gone though both websites and I don't see it...
Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous that a DMCA takedown can even be "valid" without specifying what exactly was infringed - "I am the exclusive rights holder for the artwork contained within Flat UI, Free Web User Interface Kit" isn't exactly saying much.
And that's a shame because I like Layer Vault a lot.
Sending DMCA take-downs without full intent to prosecute and full conviction that your copyrights have been violated is not only illegal but shameful.
They need to read up on W3's proposed contrast minimums: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#visual-audio-contrast-contrast
I guess pg should send a DMCA takedown notice to them, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_feel...
> I am the exclusive rights holder for the artwork contained within Flat UI
That's quite a difference to "look and feel". Right now, there is just not enough information to know what this is all about.
If it was icons, I think a court said recently icons cannot be copyrighted?
Ah maybe it was thumbnails cannot be copyrighted.
I like browsing their Designer News links on a daily basis, but I would think twice about signing up for a service run by people with questionable character and morals, which is the feeling I am coming away with after reading through this thread.
This whole thing could have been handled a lot better and with far more professionalism.
I've read comments (not on HN) from people who have endorsed the DMCA takedown because of their personal ethics and morals rather than knowledge of the law. Particularly one who claimed that the similar colour palettes between LV and Flat UI justified the takedown - even though colour palettes themselves are currently not copyrightable subject matter. To win on those grounds you'd need a genius (and crazy) lawyer and a judge who is either asleep at the wheel or bribed. Then you'd lose on appeal anyway.
Colours can be only trademarked. Using that colour is not a copyright violation. Hence no DMCA.
It makes me sad that as we all move towards minimalist design startup founders will need to know IP law better than a few years ago. Some of this is due to trolling and some because of a mislead or otherwise naive understanding of the law like I mentioned above. It's just adding pressure on founders that we don't really need and more work for lawyers.
A lot of us are doing whatever we're doing for the first time and that makes us (potentially) easy targets. A better knowledge of the law in this scenario might have prevented everything from blowing up like it has. But Flat UI and Layervault wouldn't have had as much energy put into the product and so everyone suffers.
Then again I'm in law school right now so at least I know there's a job in all of this if i ever need it :-/
I guess I just wish we could stop bickering about stuff like this and get on with building cool stuff.
Edit: Emphasise the trademark-ability, not copyright-ability, of particular colours/palettes.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are-trademarked-2...
Plus, it is actually fairly difficult to trademark a color.
I'm repulsed at the idea of "owning" a visual depiction of a fucking newspaper.
And yes, I've worked for years of my life as a designer. I know what if feels like to have people copy you.
I have been waiting for this to happen for a while. Their "Bricks UI" is an extremely blatant copy of Google Ventures' web site, and it's weird nothing happened there.
http://www.googleventures.com/ http://designmodo.com/the-bricks-addons/
I'm not on either side, but it's just painful to watch the reactions on HN. It seems like a lot of the commenters were just closed down somewhere waiting for the right occasion to blame some copyright enforcer.
Any designer that doesn't understand that design is an iterative process, shouldn't be a designer anymore.
Any designer would look at Flat UI and immediately realize that they drew inspiration from LayerVault. The similarities aren't minor, in either style, tone, or techniques.
The three icons DesignModo removed were the most obvious offenders. And by obvious, I mean, "Yeah, you completely ripped those".
So DesignModo has absolutely no right, in any sense, to be indignant. They produced unoriginal, lazy, copied work, and got called out on it.
Within this thread, I see lots of idiotic bits such as "LayerVault doesn't own hex codes!", "You can't own a style!", etc etc. These type of comments miss the forest for the trees.
Individually, no, LayerVault has no right to claim ownership of any specific color. But Flat UI's rip is the combination of a rip of all things together, not one thing in specific. Change the color scheme of the illustrations and you'd have less of a case. Change the shadow technique, or the general aesthetic of the icons.
It's the COMBINATION of all of these factors which makes this a "rip".
Now, what DesignModo did may not be illegal, but why is anyone rushing to defend them? In what terrible universe is being an insipid, unoriginal copier something any community champions?
And why would anyone walk away with a negative opinion of LayerVault? Really? You don't think they should be slightly irked that DesignModo ripped off their distinctive style, and is _charging_ people for the chance to use it?
It baffles the mind.
If you're upset they used the DMCA (a legal tool made specifically for this type of situation), I guess that's fair, if slightly myopic.
The DMCA ("Digitam Millenium COPYRIGHT Act") provides the take-down mechanism as a means to take down copyright infringing content, and in exchange gives the hosts of that content a safe-harbor[1].
So when people say "they don't own turquoise", those people are correct. LayerVault does not and can not hold a copyright on turquoise, or on their style of icon, and thus does not have the right to issue a copyright DMCA take-down notice for content made in the same style as their own.
[1] If a host follows the DMCA take-down process, in theory they're safe from being sued for unwittingly and unintentionally hosting copyrighted content. in practice, those suites tend to happen anyway, with the claim that the infringement was knowing -- see also youtube, megavideo).
You're jumbling what LV actually did with the simplification of what they did.
I have. At best, it's inspired by the LV ones.
But they have just similar concepts and colors. One black shoe might seem similar to another, but they don't infringe on copyright. One fashion creation from Zara might be quite similar to another one from a no-name, but if they slightly move one button or pocket, it's a new design.
You might like the draconian nature of the laws mechanisms but it's not a "misuse". It's just "I don't like it when people use it."
It looks more like someone came from the viewpoint of "let's make some icons like LayerVault's," which may or may not be an IP violation, but it certainly is not a violation of copyright.
If LV knows differently, they certainly don't appear to be interested in telling us how they know, hence the pitchforks.
What it boils down to is that there was no actual copyright infringement. If you look at the side-by-sides of the alleged infringement, it's kind of silly.
Even laying aside the heart of the issue, did they "rip off" the gear icon, the newspaper icon, or the chat icon? Did they "rip off" the general color scheme or look-and-feel? Or are those merely representative of a minimalist flat school of design which is currently in vogue?
How many freelance designers would you have to contract to make a "settings" icon, or an "interlocking gears" icon before you got back a (clean-room) design which looked even more like LV's than the one in question? Same goes for the newspaper and the chat icon. And is there any direct inspiration going on there (designer laying eyeballs on LV's design and then drawing ours a day or a month later) - probably not. And we could make the designs all clustered a lot tighter if we specifically asked for one that used very few high-contrast colors or a "flat" style.
If you then presented 10 of these farmed-out icon designs to a panel of designers, and told them that some of them had been ripped off of others, they would probably have some pretty strong opinions on which those were. And they would be wrong.
if (inspiration.drawnfrom("us")) { file.DMCA(); }
Probably they didn't break copyright, but basically they copied the style and made it a commodity (this is like the Svbtle thing all over again). Flat design is a trend, but I haven't seen similar site, with similar colors and style as Layervault. When you ripoff something almost 1:1 in design, necessarily it isn't illegal but it isn't honorable either. As a designer, you shouldn't do that to other designers.
EDIT: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7d9027189b18855f5f2ddeb7d...
Ignoring the colour (red on white VS white on blue) and the distressing of the Debian logo vs the cleanness of the designmodo logo there's the opening of the spiral - Debian curve starts at 6 o clock, while designmodo starts at 4:30 or 5 o clock. And the inside of the Debian loop goes further.
[ Note that the DN logo and the FlatUI newspaper icon that have been held up as examples by LV are about as similar as these two icons. ]
shakes head in dismay and wanders off
But then designmodo would absolutely be forced to defend itself and layervault would be liable in court.
DMCA is a bunch of bullshit.
Here's the Flat UI designs: http://designmodo.github.com/Flat-UI/
LV is saying that illustrations/artwork was the reason for the notice so if anyone have artwork on the dashboard they can compare that'd be great (cause I can't find any copied artwork from their main site).
Layervault https://layervault.com/
The issue is artwork/illustration.
Fortunately I only wanted the CSS. If an illustration was stolen (which seems unlikely, or at least it wasn't done with designmodo's knowledge), that won't affect me since I'm not using any of them.
username at gmail
I'd love a copy too, actually. Just the CSS. username @gmail.com as well, if you'd be so kind.
Even Apple didn't even go after others when rounded corners, glassy/glossy, gradient buttons was the trend. (Yes, Apple didn't invent those, just as LV didn't invent flat UI or the art work - which btw, is just a flat color. Glad Pantone isn't going around with LV's mentality.)
Just speechless.
It's obviously not a copy of it, but rather an "inspired version" of it. With that being said, it's definitely possible that designmodo didn't copy layervault, but rather was "inspired" by them. Not sure how that would stand up legally, but I would say that if I were designer, it would be "ethically annoying".
The blog is our CTO's.
http://i.imgur.com/jfSuxcK.png
http://i.imgur.com/cMO4lxA.png
http://i.imgur.com/JnaZdN7.png
I cannot believe a "top notch" design house can get this so wrong.
Edit: Designer News seems to suffer from the same affliction.
A lot of sites that are HN these days seem to lack contrast, what's up with that?
I'm all about usability but I'm also lenient when the audience isn't as wide as what Amazon or eBay have to cater to.
I think it's a little unnerving that you'd put 'top notch.' None of those examples are break it for me as a designer and a potential customer. Overall the style and feel of the site is significantly memorable and it's a site that I've come back to time and time again.
That statement disturbs me a bit, because it seems to imply that contrast and readability aren't important to designers, and that designers are grudgingly humouring us normals when they make designs with legible text sizes in readable colour combinations for our ugly utilitarian sites.
I don't think that's true, though. I've been lucky enough to work with some very talented designers with the ability to make things that are both elegant and readable. Anything else is just narcissistic posing, after all.
The problem is, of course, a good page design should try to call out specific detail.
Colorful, pastel, monotone and low-contrast UIs are just a general trend along with "flat" design, I don't think it's roots can be pinpointed.
https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309346292902014976 https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309350351054716929
Unless he gives some solid proof, he does not deserve the Benoit of the doubt.
But then when I see the side by sides that have been posted here, even the things that have been taken down, I get a big "fuck off" stuck in my throat.
Similar is not copy. Unless you want the same environment for copyright that we have right now with software patents.
OPG v. Diebold (2004):
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2007):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp (Overview)
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorde... (Court Orders)
DMCA needs reform on this. There needs to be scale of fines for parties that issue takedowns based upon false copyright claims.
It's sort of like the logic of GPL.