"Eventually, he removed the most blatant icons which (in my eyes) is an admission of guilt."
Sure, couldn't possibly be that he just wanted to do whatever it took to get you to leave him alone.
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.
The clock:
* The FlatUI one has a drop shadow
* The length of both hands is different
* In the Dribbl artwork the hands are all the same size, while the FlatUI one has a "skinny" minute hand and an even skinnier second hand
* The colors are not at all similar
The map:
* The width is different
* The landmasses are completely different
* There is a different number of landmasses
* The colors are, again, quite different
* The Dribbl art is of a map with three folds, with both ends facing downwards so it forms an "M" shape, while the FlatUI one has four folds, with one end facing down and the other facing up
Beyond details inherent in the objects and art style (e.g. clocks are round and have hands), there are more differences than similarities. I would hardly call that "identical."
Case in point. The text below has more difference contained within it then the list of 9 specific difference you listed in your post. Taken individually, they prove that I did not copy your post, and that what is below is original.
However, any reasonable person would take a look at the two and find that they are very similar in terms of style, presentation, and intent. That they are copies. Identical, no, but copies nonetheless.
---
There aren't any examples of identical artwork from the two sources that I can see. There are links such as http://bit.ly/13IvNcq that show substantially different artwork side by side. Do you really mean to tell me you can't see any difference between those? The only substantial similarity in either of those is the placement of the pins of the map. Notable differences: The clock: * The FlatUI one has a drop shadow. * The length of both hands is different. * The colors are not at all similar. * In the Dribbl artwork the hands are all the same size, while the FlatUI one has a 'skinny' minute hand and a skinnier second hand.
The map: * The landmasses are different. * The width is different. * The colors are quite different. * There are a different number of landmasses. * The Dribbl art is of a map with three folds, with both ends facing downwards so it forms an 'M' shape, while the FlatUI one has four folds, with one end facing down and the other facing up.
Beyond details inherent in the objects and art style (e.g. clocks are round and have hands), there are more differences than similarities. I would hardly call that 'identical.'
A better refutation would be to produce a well thought-out comparison of the two graphics that shows substantial similarity. I compared them as best I could and most of the artistic decisions seemed to be different between the two. If you have reached a different conclusion, I would love to see your analysis to compare.
If you haven't analyzed them in as much detail as I did and reached a different conclusion, I don't see why you felt it was intellectually honest to take a computerized copy of my comment and claim it as containing "more difference."
That's similarity, not copying. Copying is bit for bit or pixel for pixel identical.
So... couldn't we argue that LayerVault copied the design of actual clocks? Using your logic, the inventor of the wall clock would be just as justified sending LayerVault a take-down notice, right?
If you recall apple is paying $21m to license the Swiss Railway clock design.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/10/apple-reportedly-p...
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.
"What exactly is the point you're trying to make?"
Thank you for agreeing with my original comment. night!
At this point, I'd like to refer you to pg's essay on how to disagree[1]. You might want to pay attention to sections 4 and 5 in his hierarchy of dissent.
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
If he had copied, even in just a similar way, LayerVault's logo to use as an icon (and assuming LV trademarked it) then this discussion would be pretty different.
There were slight differences in hand lengths, removal of the logo (obviously), and stroke widths.
I believe in the value and importance of design, but the money/value ratio of design IP has gotten out of hand.
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
If it were ONLY the colors, or ONLY the look and feel of the widgets (which, come on, are almost exactly the same as well), or ONLY the icons… different story entirely. But it's the SUM of all of those things.
This is not how copyright works.
To me it seems like more of a trademark/trade dress issue, which as far as I know doesn't fall under copyright, but it's extremely silly to say that the resemblance between FlatUI and LayerVault isn't uncanny.
And besides, establishing an infringement of trademark and that it was then infringed will require an absolute mountain of cash and lawyers and time. I'm assuming they have nothing relating to the IP they're annoyed about on paper and so they'd need to show that they 'owned' it in equity. They'd almost certainly go bankrupt before they have a chance of winning a case in court.
(IANAL... yet)
The only thing you can file a DMCA takedown notice for is a copyright issue. That's it. By filing a DMCA takedown notice you are asserting there is a 'copyright issue'.