9 ms·

I think you might just be taking the wrong approach. Shaming them is a bad idea, at least as a first move. Seek-out and contact the owners of these businesses.

I think you might just be taking the wrong approach. 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. If I couldn't code my own sites and had to rely on designers who took this approach I certainly would feel pretty bad upon learning about it. What to do then? Tell them that you'll gladly allow them to use the design for a small fee. Or, perhaps better yet, if they actually hired an outside firm to build their site, propose that you take over their site design and that you'll fix what they got wrong. If the deed was done in-house or you are up against a coder-designer-founder that just go lazy, figure out a win-win. Out of respect they ought to at least pay you something. You could even lobby for a link in the footer with "Site design based on ...". I wouldn't opt for "Site designed by" because if they screw it up it could look bad for you. Aikido vs. Karate. It can work wonders. Oh, yes, I also concur with those who proposed that you might want to consider productizing your design. As a minimum-viable-product you now know that there are people willing to steal it. With the right approach you might be able to find people willing to buy it. You could even consider expanding upon this and creating a few more designs. Post them openly on your site with an invitation to use them and the condition that you are to receive payment after a thirty day trial period. Just a thought.

bwsewell 14y ago
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.
addlepate 14y ago
I know this comment is meant sincerely, and it is well-written, but silly nonetheless. Given that these people ripped off the author so lazily in the first place, there is no reason to think that the time spent contacting these people one-by-one would not be wasted. Also, let's not shed too many tears for the people "shamed" in this way. Come on.
illuminate 14y ago
"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.
amirmc 14y ago
> "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).
jseliger 14y ago
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-spammers-grant-writing-scams-community-spec-inc-s-ryan-reeves-resource-associates-and-more/ http://blog.seliger.com/2009/07/03/fake-grant-writers-spamme...
mijustin 14y ago
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.
- robomartin 14y ago
  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.
  - bandithouse 14y ago
    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.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      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).
ricardobeat 14y ago
His approach appears to have worked, 4/5 of the websites are down.
cscurmudgeon 14y ago
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.)
- coopdog 14y ago
  I think the difference is that they're making a direct profit from copying, rather than just sharing knowledge.
  - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
    I understand that there is a difference. What I have difficulty understanding is the semi-vitriolic hate.
    - nikatwork 14y ago
      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.
- pvaldes 14y ago
  >" 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.
abraxasz 14y ago
I'm not against your general point. But take this website: http://dapaticalglobal.com/ 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.
- cstrat 14y ago
  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.
novaleaf 14y ago
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)

bwsewell 14y ago

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.

addlepate 14y ago

I know this comment is meant sincerely, and it is well-written, but silly nonetheless. Given that these people ripped off the author so lazily in the first place, there is no reason to think that the time spent contacting these people one-by-one would not be wasted. Also, let's not shed too many tears for the people "shamed" in this way. Come on.

illuminate 14y ago

"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.

amirmc 14y ago

> "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).

jseliger 14y ago

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-spammers-grant-writing-scams-community-spec-inc-s-ryan-reeves-resource-associates-and-more/ http://blog.seliger.com/2009/07/03/fake-grant-writers-spamme...

mijustin 14y ago

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.

robomartin 14y ago
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.
- bandithouse 14y ago
  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.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    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).

ricardobeat 14y ago

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

cscurmudgeon 14y ago

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.)

coopdog 14y ago
I think the difference is that they're making a direct profit from copying, rather than just sharing knowledge.
- cscurmudgeon 14y ago
  I understand that there is a difference. What I have difficulty understanding is the semi-vitriolic hate.
  - nikatwork 14y ago
    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.
pvaldes 14y ago
>" 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.

abraxasz 14y ago

I'm not against your general point. But take this website: http://dapaticalglobal.com/ 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.

cstrat 14y ago
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.

novaleaf 14y ago

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)