5 ms·

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, lon

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).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- alexqgb 14y ago
  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.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    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.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      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.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        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.
- sk5t 14y ago
  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.
- zachinglis 14y ago
  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.
VSerge 14y ago
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.
Raz0rblade 14y ago
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?
- mijustin 14y ago
  "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.
- piqufoh 14y ago
  "Get a life and get used to it" Bit tough no? OP is only calling them out!
- stch2 14y ago
  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?
  - Volpe 14y ago
    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.
  - lotsofcows 14y ago
    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.
vacri 14y ago
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.
- dserodio 14y ago
  Not apples and oranges if the OP's business is design

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).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
alexqgb 14y ago
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.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  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.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    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.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      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.
sk5t 14y ago
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.
zachinglis 14y ago
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.

VSerge 14y ago

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.

Raz0rblade 14y ago

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?

mijustin 14y ago
"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.
piqufoh 14y ago
"Get a life and get used to it" Bit tough no? OP is only calling them out!
stch2 14y ago
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?
- Volpe 14y ago
  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.
- lotsofcows 14y ago
  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.

vacri 14y ago

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.

dserodio 14y ago
Not apples and oranges if the OP's business is design