Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 386 posts

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#341

Post by milkshakes »

alexpenny wrote: post #340
milkshakes wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I am trying to make is that you are not adding information to the discussion. It's obvious upon inspection that a small portion of the graphical assets, and even the color scheme are similar. It is equally obvious that they are not identical. This thread is about the appropriateness of LayerVault abusing the DMCA's takedown provisions in order to stifle an open source project in response to perceived "simil…

> It's obvious upon inspection that a small portion of the graphical assets, as well as the overall color scheme are similar. Thank you for agreeing with my original comment. night!

I have been trying to communicate a concept to you, specifically that copyright infringement is not the same as copying a design. I fear that I have failed. Perhaps you can't hear me, and don't want to. Maybe you understand what it is that I am trying to communicate, but lack the tools with which to articulate your dissent. Either way, it appears that you're now simply arguing for the sake of arguing instead of responding to what I'm actually trying to say. As fun as that sounds, I think I'll pass.

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.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#342

Post by chc »

alexpenny wrote: post #333
chc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show the earlier work to which these are identical? If that is the case, I will retract what I said. But I don't think it's the case.

The links are in the original comment. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

There aren't any examples of identical artwork from the two sources that I can see. There are links such as http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K 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

* 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."

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#343

Post by tetrad »

etchalon wrote: post #214

I'm not a massive fan of the most of the responses in this thread. Any designer would look at Flat UI and immediately realize that they drew inspiration from LayerVault. The similarities aren't minor, in either style, tone, or techniques. The three icons DesignModo removed were the most obvious offenders. And by obvious, I mean, "Yeah, you completely ripped those". So DesignModo has absolutely no right, in any sense,…

> Any designer would look at Flat UI and immediately realize that they drew inspiration from LayerVault. The similarities aren't minor, in either style, tone, or techniques.

What it boils down to is that there was no actual copyright infringement. If you look at the side-by-sides of the alleged infringement, it's kind of silly.

Even laying aside the heart of the issue, did they "rip off" the gear icon, the newspaper icon, or the chat icon? Did they "rip off" the general color scheme or look-and-feel? Or are those merely representative of a minimalist flat school of design which is currently in vogue?

How many freelance designers would you have to contract to make a "settings" icon, or an "interlocking gears" icon before you got back a (clean-room) design which looked even more like LV's than the one in question? Same goes for the newspaper and the chat icon. And is there any direct inspiration going on there (designer laying eyeballs on LV's design and then drawing ours a day or a month later) - probably not. And we could make the designs all clustered a lot tighter if we specifically asked for one that used very few high-contrast colors or a "flat" style.

If you then presented 10 of these farmed-out icon designs to a panel of designers, and told them that some of them had been ripped off of others, they would probably have some pretty strong opinions on which those were. And they would be wrong.

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#344

Post by camus »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #96

Someone please lend LayerVault some contrast. http://i.imgur.com/jfSuxcK.png http://i.imgur.com/cMO4lxA.png http://i.imgur.com/JnaZdN7.png I cannot believe a "top notch" design house can get this so wrong. Edit: Designer News seems to suffer from the same affliction. https://news.layervault.com/ A lot of sites that are HN these days seem to lack contrast, what's up with that?

Because they use shiny mac computers that all have the same screen. If it looks bad on other screens they just dont care. They are designers , not UI UX specialists , nor know anything about readability or ergonomy. They are just trying to follow a trend , a horrible one born from only god knows where ...

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#345

Post by polack »

lowboy wrote: post #328
jacalata wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And describing someone as an x doesn't always mean they are a repeated doer of the x-act. Eg, dictator: do you think only someone who was a dictator of multiple countries can be legitimately called that? If you say, as you did for murderer, that 'this example is too loaded', then you are recognising that the reaction is different for acts of different impact, and therefore your analogy of 'singer' is irrelevant until…

The dictator doesn't have to be multiple countries, but a dictator for at least a while. Would someone who was a dictator for a day but was otherwise a civil servant for 30 years be called a dictator? I wouldn't say so. You can say he was a dictator for a short time, but not just "a dictator" without that context.

Wouldn't it be correct to call him a dictator the day that he was a dictator? My point being is that as long as LV are engaged in what you say is "one act of trolling", then they can be called trolls.

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#346

Post by 3amOpsGuy »

DanBC wrote: post #53
3amOpsGuy wrote: post #46

The designmodo logo is quite debian-esque. Maybe too close to debian's i'd think. EDIT: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7d9027189b18855f5f2ddeb7d...

Eh, they're just logos. They're pretty different. Ignoring the colour (red on white VS white on blue) and the distressing of the Debian logo vs the cleanness of the designmodo logo there's the opening of the spiral - Debian curve starts at 6 o clock, while designmodo starts at 4:30 or 5 o clock. And the inside of the Debian loop goes further.

>> Eh, they're just logos

shakes head in dismay and wanders off

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#347

Post by 3amOpsGuy »

pyre wrote: post #179
DanBC wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, they're just logos. They're pretty different. Ignoring the colour (red on white VS white on blue) and the distressing of the Debian logo vs the cleanness of the designmodo logo there's the opening of the spiral - Debian curve starts at 6 o clock, while designmodo starts at 4:30 or 5 o clock. And the inside of the Debian loop goes further.

But they're similar . They were obviously copied with willful and malicious intent! DMCA sent! [ Note that the DN logo and the FlatUI newspaper icon that have been held up as examples by LV are about as similar as these two icons. ]

doesnt bother shaking head in dismay, just wanders off

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#348

Post by meerita »

elemeno wrote: post #121
meerita wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're just claming to be the owners of the style, colors of his work. Meaning you cannot do something with Avenir and Helvetica font, combined with non-glassy graphycs. Something totally absurd, like saying I cannot make a framework inspired on X design movement. Check what the framework developer said: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/735e17614cca63102b8414... "he said that he: "I am the exclusive rights hold…

They're not claiming to own the style or colours, they're claiming that some of illustrations used in FlatUI are illustrations that LayerVault owns the copyright to.

Oh yes you're wrong: http://imgur.com/IH1osAD

And http://i.imgur.com/qJXJUaH.png are just proofs than they can't own anything.

Re: LayerVault Sends DMCA Takedown Letter re Flat-UI

#349

Post by mkmkmmmmm »

etchalon wrote: post #275
hhw wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They misused the DMCA because they did not own the copyright of the content they filed a DMCA against, plain and simple, and they made specific claims in the DMCA otherwise. Just because the icons were similar does not make that a copyright violation. LV either abused the DMCA out of ignorance or dishonesty. There is no other possibility here, and they deserve every bit of negative sentiment that has resulted against…

They believe they do. So it was neither ignorance nor dishonesty. _You_ don't think they do.

The DMCA is for direct copies of IP. This dispute is better resolved with a civil court case because the ownership is non-obvious. It was a very clear misuse of the DMCA and I hope the victim receives some compensation.
Post reply on HN