7 ms·

This whole episode has underlined a few major differences among developers and (current) designers. Developers are more open, contribute code and discuss about

• mistermumble 14y ago
  Interesting distinction. One related example is the sculpture in downtown Portland, Oregon, called Portlandia. The City owns the sculpture, but the artist owns the rights to any images of it, and he does not allow pictures to be taken and reproduced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(statue) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(statue) Regarding Jony Ive, I disagree that he has been very open about his work and process. I think he rightly has become a legend, but it has happened without him seeking the spotlight. The spotlight has found him, instead.
• bluekeybox 14y ago
  Personally I think this takedown notice is questionable to say the least (it looks to be a case of inspiration rather than blatant copying), but here is my devil's advocate opinion on design: When you say that designers seek "pointless exclusivity", it's a lot like saying that hackers spend their time doing "pointless tweaking". Exclusivity is the currency of design. When you design something, and ten million people already have crappy variations of the same design, your design has lost all of that currency.
  • jamesdelaneyie 14y ago
    Exclusivity is the currency of the mainstream western world. Graphic Design (currently and in the past) is the vehicle through which this desire for exclusivity is encapsulated and pushed to the masses. The old graphic design title of Commercial Artist rings true here. Your point on originality is lost on me also, doesn't the startup world of all places say that even if people have done an idea, that you can add value in other areas?
  • ameen 14y ago
    It's funny that you actually say that "Exclusivity is the currency of design", while living in a well designed non-inclusive world (Well designed Signs, Roads, Cars, Mobile devices, etc). Good Design will and always strives to be universal. It's funny that the recent Flat-design trend was triggered by Microsoft's Metro UI, which is inspired by Modern Cities' signage (universal design). Also, isn't the point of icons to be iconic? How can one seek exclusivity over an icon, the Settings Cog, which is almost universally used. LayerVault and the people behind it jumped at this for cheap publicity and to assert themselves over a new and upcoming design firm.
    • bluekeybox 14y ago
      > Good Design will and always strives to be universal Good Design doesn't sell. Great Design does. Great design will achieve exclusivity by iteratively attempting (and failing) to become universal. > It's funny that the recent Flat-design trend was triggered by Microsoft's Metro UI, which is inspired by Modern Cities' signage Which was probably inspired by Mondrian's experiments in exclusivity.
      • NoPiece 14y ago
        What would you say about a typeface like Helvetica? I'd say its greatness largely is derived from universality, not exclusivity.
        • bluekeybox 14y ago
          It's always a combination of universality and exclusivity. The latter creates a "gradient" which causes a particular design to spread. Watch the documentary "Helvetica". At it's peak in the 1960s, Helvetica had high-end "international" aura and small brands everywhere were scrambling to redesign their signage to what they perceived was a new customer-friendly yet high-end image (probably best visualized as a smiling and good-looking Swiss airline flight attendant with a noticeable accent).
  • Swizec 14y ago
    > it's a lot like saying that hackers spend their time doing "pointless tweaking" I'm a hacker and I think most hackers (including myself) often spend too much time pointlessly tweaking things. Your emacs shortcuts are okay. Promise! Just get to work. Your linux kernel is fine. Yes all the network drivers are configured well enough. Yes samba shares are working, yes rsyinc is copying stuff around. Just get to work. Yes, X is perfectly configured and compiz is doing its thing. Yes it is! Just get to work. I promise your IDE has the perfect amount of widgets in just the right place! Start coding. And so on :)
• jamesdelaneyie 14y ago
  The design world is heavily tied to fashion, trends and business, hence your idea of designers as secretive ego-guzzlers. The design world is open enough in certain areas, once you find them, on the surface from far away I understand why you have that image of the design world. Dribble and Forrst are circle-jerking hell holes. Critical discussion on design doesn't happen very well online, because, everyone thinks they're a designer. California University being a recent example. Design has a shit brand online unless you know where to look. Bloody lol at your Dieter Rams, Jonathan Ive quip. They were famous before people asked them for their design values to big-up in the media. But you raise a good point, the design world is very different to the developer world and hacker values could very well be valuable if implemented in the design world, just not sure how one would go about such things.
• etchalon 14y ago
  This is the most ridiculous… If what you were saying were true, there would be no tutorials on how to use Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. There would be no tutorials on how to create specific effects in the above. There would be no Noun Project. There would be no schools for Graphic Design. There would be no open source icon sets, or free typefaces.
• baddox 14y ago
  That does seem anecdotally true in my experience. For example, I've heard an experienced designer argue that all the patent lawsuits between Apple/Google, Apple/Samsung, etc. are good for the industry and the design discipline.
• stevenkovar 14y ago
  "Any designer" is a bit of an overstatement, but your point about being open is true. Designers at the caliber you speak of rely on, and can articulate, their (timeless) fundamental principles more than your average designer, who heavily relies on their moment in time where their work is relevant before fading into obscurity.
• nvk 14y ago
  Interesting point of view. Although a bit dramatic I do think the two think differently about their work. To the point, we actually started a repo for Sketch.app Templates, and the Sketch team is working on making their files non binaries so that we can better merge. https://github.com/sketch-templates https://github.com/sketch-templates R.
• packetbeats 14y ago
  We developers get the credit when someone is using our code. The open source libraries usually require keeping the copyright notice at least in the source file. Anyone looking at the code will know who wrote it. Putting myself in the shoes of the Layervault people, I can understand that it's very hard to accept that someone is presenting as his own work something that it took me years to arrive to via iteration. Remember also the rage of Steve Jobs when he called Android a rip-off and of Dustin Curtis when people started copying the Svbtle designs. In all cases, I think the copyright law is not on their side, and perhaps not even any ethic law, but I can understand why they are pissed.
  • resu_nimda 14y ago
    Yeah, except (almost) nobody looks at the code. In both cases (designer and developer), most people just see the end result. In other words, I don't think Layervault would feel any different if there was a comment in the HTML giving them attribution.
    • packetbeats 14y ago
      Usually the developers creating open source libraries benefit from the popularity of their projects. The more people using their code, the more well known they are. If nothing else, they feel proud when their software is downloaded N thousands times. In this case, Layervault can expect hundreds of sites to show up around the web looking just like their own. Regarding the comment in the HTML, you are right, it won't make them feel better, because the design really is meant to look at. It doesn't matter how clever the source code is. That's the disadvantage the designers have, I was just saying I can understand them.
  • etchalon 14y ago
    Basically, this. As a developer, I get to _chose_ how someone uses my code. I can release my code, and attach one of any number of licenses, which give another developer _permission_ to use my code, while laying out restrictions. If that license is violated, there is a legal recourse for me (and one which is used quite often to enforce things like the GPL, etc.) Within the development community, this is the accepted protocol for how you "borrow" code from another developer. Violating this protocol is pretty much universally reviled. But the same universal revulsion doesn't exist for design. Unless you literally copy and paste someone's actual file. And I think that's where the disconnect comes from. In development, the hard work is in the typing, not the idea, really. If I see an animation effect I like, or a feature from a competitor's product, there's still a massive effort I have to undertake to recreate it. The "work" in development is in the work itself, not in the idea. Obviously there are cases where this isn't true. Novel design patterns, component compositions, etc. exist. But I'm going for an 80/20 discussion here. In design, the work itself is generally secondary to all the upfront effort work of the "idea". A designer will throw away a dozen, if not more, failed attempts at an idea. Minor things like color, shape, typeface, will be iterated on over and over again, until something takes form that looks "correct". Once they've reached that climax though, the actually complexity of the end product might be minimal. Recreating all of that designer's choices is beyond simple, so long as you have the software. Even if you don't literally trace their image, all of the "work" has been done for you.
• mnicole 14y ago
  I think that this is part of a bigger problem; a lot of people find design to be "easy" in that it's subjective - Client A doesn't like your work but Client B does. Can't even get a job in the field? No worries, people flock to 99Designs and Fiverr for cheap, tacky work that validates the crummy designer. Working for someone with no morals? They'll show you some styles they like and tell you they want it "exactly" like that, and if you want a paycheck, you'll do it and maybe you'll learn something about the technique that you can translate into more original works. Some people just honestly don't think they'll ever be caught or that they have a right to be "heavily-inspired" because "you don't own that". http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ has been around for awhile, but now with Pinterest, Dribbble and other resources, it's becoming a lot more common to find the people who are making it difficult for designers to feel like they can truly stand out. Outside of flat copying/pasting code, it takes a little more to get it to be functional. By nature, lots of developers are working in teams where collaboration/pair programming is promoted to begin with. You work on projects where it is essential to team up to figure out what's going on and what could make it better. In order to ensure the project continues to move forward and work, there needs to be a method to the madness that everyone understands. At the agencies I've worked at, while everyone was a designer, we all had our specialties and we didn't really work together much outside of talking about general branding guidelines/techniques, etc. In design, all it takes is having the same software to mimic something. So when someone that is actually doing honest-to-goodness original, clever stuff gets jacked by the hacks-at-large, it is easy to get defensive and want to lock it down, particularly when you make your livelihood getting clients that like your style and it is suddenly watered down by clones and you're not getting paid to do what you made popular anymore. On Dribbble, I've seen it go so far down the hole that people have both claimed the original artist was the hack or said "Really reminds me of [hack]'s work.." on someone's copy of a copy.
  • etchalon 14y ago
    Thank you for posting this.
  • MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    Yep, designers sell their designs whereas developers sell their expertise. It's this way because that's what the market wants right now. When companies start to hire designers because their good and not because their portfolio contains stuff they've never seen before, designers will become more open.
• bpatrianakos 14y ago
  I think that's too broad of a generalization. I happen to walk the line between designer and developer and I know a lot of my fellow designers are very open about their process and work. Designers often share their tools and techniques openly. See the multitude of CSS frameworks, free fonts, PSDs, etc. I think the notion that they're more secretive less open comes from these cases where a designer does make a stink about "theft", "copying", or whatever the terms they use may be. The thing about that is, well, first design is a very personal thing. Yes, there are rules and best practices, tools, and techniques that apply universally but at the same time good design also carries with it a piece of the designer. We take our designs personally. It's very hard to release an open source piece of design work because you need to make it in such a way that it can be effectively customized or used in such a way that the larger context makes it a unique work unless of course it's a rare case of the designer not caring if everyone in the world uses the design verbatim (see: Wordpress themes). I know for me, personally, I've put many design projects on GitHub - from the mockups to assets to the code to put a site together - knowing there's a chance someone will use it verbatim but hoping it gets used as a jumping off point or customized to make it someone else's. With design, you can see when someone has ripped you off very obviously most of the time. You can't own design elements of course but its a very subjective thing that you just know when you see it. Developers and designers also think very differently in some areas. With developers everything is logical and black and white. With designers, much of their work is vague, fluid, and incredibly subjective. Emotion plays a role in the success of design often times whereas a developer's code will be just as useful and functional no matter how anyone feels about it. As a developer, when I open source something, I know that I can't own the concept of a loop or a database query or whatever. What makes my code unique is the way in which I solve my problem and how it solves a problem that other code has not solved. I'd be happy if someone forked my code, made it better, and started a new project from it that became popular. However I'd be upset if someone took my design, added on to it, and passed it off as their own. The difference? On the surface there shouldn't be one. But beyond the surface it's all about the piece of yourself you put into design work. Hopefully this makes sense and doesn't just sound like rambling. I'm sure I may need to clarify a few things I said so please ask if I said something vague.
  • ameen 14y ago
• WayneDB 14y ago
  How has Jonathan Ive been open about his work?
  • grinich 14y ago
    famous != open
• ratherbefuddled 14y ago
  The distinction I think I've seen is that designers are often more inclined to assert ownership of an abstract idea, whereas developers tend to assert ownership of the concrete and often revile the notion of owning ideas. I say this because (in general), whilst developers would not violate a license or steal code, they would often happily implement the same idea someone else had from scratch without any qualms. You can see this in how the notion of patents are despised in software far more than other industries. Perhaps for developers, ideas are easy and implementations are hard, whilst for designers the reverse is true. In any case, copyright is about the concrete. You can't - or at least shouldn't be able to - use the DMCA to prevent people expanding on your ideas or being inspired them. Unless an artifact has been copied, there is no copyright violation. This seems counter-intuitive to some designers, but at the same time seems obvious to developers. In this particular case, there is no copying and no copyright violation. That is obvious. There is also as much evidence that FlatUI was inspired by LayerVault's work, as there is that LayerVault was inspired by other work already created. The DMCA takedown was wrong legally, and strategically, but despite the reaction LayerVault don't seem to realise this. Sadly for them their business will probably suffer for it, and they've probably made FlatUI a lot more popular.
  • derleth 14y ago
    > they would often happily implement the same idea someone else had from scratch without any qualms There is only one MD5. There is only one preorder traversal of a binary tree. Creativity is essential, but unless you do those kinds of things the same way as everyone else, you're doing them wrong and will get the wrong results.
    • gertef 14y ago
      API and implementation are not equivalent.
      • derleth 14y ago
        Nobody said they were.
    • 14y ago
• enra 14y ago
  I think it's more about that design is personal, identifying (which also brings up emotions easily) and that the problem here is about the rights for those personal things. Since design is actually _more_ open, visible and made for people, inherently there isn't any way to hide or obscure it (like you can do in some level with code or technology). It's about having rights or giving permission. You share the code or design you want to share, but should have a right not to do it as well. You design something for your loved one, and see it end up as campaign for a multimillion dollar business. You design your product with love, just with the right and personal style and see it to end up as commodity. Those things feel like worst kind of abuse if you didn't expect or want them to happen. There is bit similar kind of outrage when corporations use open source code and don't share it back. Design and brands are also identifying and they build trust and value, so copying design is bit like stealing your identity, name or face. If someone somehow uses your code without your permission, almost no-one will notice that it's _your code_ running in the backend. And this is not the same discussion as pirating music or movies, those are products made to consume, and their value doesn't decrease when people use it more. But for example using Bootstrap default design doesn't really bring up trust or anything positive anymore since some many people are using it, so usage decreases the value of a specific design. As a final note, fashion and design of course runs on getting inspired by other people's work and that's how it should be be. However even something isn't illegal, it doesn't mean it's ethical or nice. (You may also notice that both Rams and Ive talk about their designs or process post-mortem, so they can choose the parts and the way they want to talk about it.)