6 ms·

I think you are confused about what we are most upset about. You don't even mention the DMCA once in your comment. The DMCA, and abuse of it, is something tha

I think you are confused about what we are most upset about. You don't even mention the DMCA once in your comment. The DMCA, and abuse of it, is something that gets HN's dander up. As far as we can tell, LV perjured themselves, either intentionally or through ignorance of what copyright actually means. The result is that legal material will have been taken off the internet for 10 days, with no repercussions, despite the (presumably) false claims made by LV. It is in this context that people are breaking out the pitchforks. If LV had made a blog post complaining about the "rip", they probably would have gained HN's sympathy.

etchalon 14y ago
Reading through the comments, I do see a few mentions of the DMCA, but there's plenty of "they don't own turquoise!" type comments as well. 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.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  I don't think you understand the DMCA. It is NOT a legal tool for this type of situation. 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).
  - etchalon 14y ago
    And LV isn't going after them for turquoise, but for specific illustrations, which are copyrightable. You're jumbling what LV actually did with the simplification of what they did.
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      > And LV isn't going after them for turquoise, but for specific illustrations, which are copyrightable. No. The illustrations were not direct copies.
    - mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
      AFAIK, the DMCA notice did not list specific images. Have you found the specific images that were copied?
      - etchalon 14y ago
        Sadly, no. I'm mostly going off Allan's comments on the DN thread where he talks about them using their illustrations. And also than they haven't been running around issuing DMCA's to every _other_ flat UI style everything. Clearly, they believe specific assets were copied to the point that a DMCA was appropriate. Pending a full post from LV, I'm giving them the benefit, as I'm certainly not giving the benefit of the doubt to the designers who so thoroughly ripped LV's style. Should that post never come, or its contents show LV as trying to enforce a copyright on something that was merely "inspired" and not copied, I'll change my tone.
        Bluestrike2 14y ago
        It doesn't matter. A valid DMCA takedown notice is fully self-contained. There's no follow-up, no sending someone to a blog post, or anything else. If it's not in the takedown, it's not material to the claim. Refer to Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google if you're curious.
    - Bluestrike2 14y ago
      No, they're not. The DMCA takedown notice must meet each element as specified by law. In particular, the notice must explicitly identify the copyrighted work as well as the material claimed to be infringed. In their DMCA notice, LV failed to meet the requirements for a valid DMCA takedown notice. By failing to specify their own work, as well as what materials in particular were allegedly infringing, they ensured that their claim was invalid on face. As a result, LV isn't going after anyone. An invalid takedown notice carries no duty to act on the part of the service provider. It, quite simply, doesn't exist. The really remarkable thing here isn't that LV filed an invalid notice--it happens all the time, particularly when they're automated in other circumstances--but that Github acted on it at all as an invalid takedown notice is not considered by the courts to impart actual knowledge of infringement. In effect, if it's invalid, the takedown notice doesn't exist.

etchalon 14y ago

Reading through the comments, I do see a few mentions of the DMCA, but there's plenty of "they don't own turquoise!" type comments as well. 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.

pifflesnort 14y ago
I don't think you understand the DMCA. It is NOT a legal tool for this type of situation. 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).
- etchalon 14y ago
  And LV isn't going after them for turquoise, but for specific illustrations, which are copyrightable. You're jumbling what LV actually did with the simplification of what they did.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    > And LV isn't going after them for turquoise, but for specific illustrations, which are copyrightable. No. The illustrations were not direct copies.
  - mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
    AFAIK, the DMCA notice did not list specific images. Have you found the specific images that were copied?
    - etchalon 14y ago
      Sadly, no. I'm mostly going off Allan's comments on the DN thread where he talks about them using their illustrations. And also than they haven't been running around issuing DMCA's to every _other_ flat UI style everything. Clearly, they believe specific assets were copied to the point that a DMCA was appropriate. Pending a full post from LV, I'm giving them the benefit, as I'm certainly not giving the benefit of the doubt to the designers who so thoroughly ripped LV's style. Should that post never come, or its contents show LV as trying to enforce a copyright on something that was merely "inspired" and not copied, I'll change my tone.
      - Bluestrike2 14y ago
        It doesn't matter. A valid DMCA takedown notice is fully self-contained. There's no follow-up, no sending someone to a blog post, or anything else. If it's not in the takedown, it's not material to the claim. Refer to Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google if you're curious.
  - Bluestrike2 14y ago
    No, they're not. The DMCA takedown notice must meet each element as specified by law. In particular, the notice must explicitly identify the copyrighted work as well as the material claimed to be infringed. In their DMCA notice, LV failed to meet the requirements for a valid DMCA takedown notice. By failing to specify their own work, as well as what materials in particular were allegedly infringing, they ensured that their claim was invalid on face. As a result, LV isn't going after anyone. An invalid takedown notice carries no duty to act on the part of the service provider. It, quite simply, doesn't exist. The really remarkable thing here isn't that LV filed an invalid notice--it happens all the time, particularly when they're automated in other circumstances--but that Github acted on it at all as an invalid takedown notice is not considered by the courts to impart actual knowledge of infringement. In effect, if it's invalid, the takedown notice doesn't exist.