Huh? Not the same.
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.'
Don't know if 'kinda' is being used to soften the accusation or it's not a straight up copy - I can't see the icon they are talking about.
http://designmodo.github.com/Flat-UI/
Edit: Found them and slapped them together for side by side comparison http://imgur.com/rli5IVU
They just aren't the same icon. The visual metaphor all these icons rely on is decades old. It's the details that matter.
My only point was that when you are getting hammered by people and the evidence you provide is that, it looks poorly thought out.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing as to whether the Flat UI guys copied them or not, but like the larger argument, the icon he is putting forward as copied work is itself conceptually very similar to other existing icon work(s). As a designer I would be more than a little miffed if that design appeared if I had created the Noun Project's version and not openly licensed it.
If that is the case, it somewhat undermines the claim that the assets are fully owned by them or even that ownership can be so quickly claimed.
IANAL, but that's what I was told by a law student.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332635
It's certainly not a verbatim copy or even close.
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.