Ripped Off Again! (Does The Replacement Infringe?)
Comments: 44
Last week it came to my attention that Antipixel had been ripped off again (40K png). Rather than running straight to Pirated Sites, I contacted the owner of the site seeking an explanation.
I was curious because the person who stole this design used my code and style sheets (rather than just basing their own code on this design) — and to do that they had to remove more than one copyright notice and a commented inline warning against stealing the site in the source code of the main page. They then proceeded to copyright their copy of this site! Wow.
I’m not about to quote private correspondence here, but the response I got asked whether I had received this person’s first e-mail which, they mentioned, was not in their Sent box for some reason. I’m guessing because they never sent it. I checked whether I’d received mail from them before writing, but had not received any according to my records.
I replied to this letter by asking that all infringing material be removed, and received an assurance that this had been done (at not time, curiously, did I receive an apology which, to a tender-hearted fellow like myself, can make a big difference). I also received a screenshot (24K png) with a request to comment on whether I considered this an infringement or not. The site itself seems to be sporting the latest iteration of the replacement design.
I have not replied as to whether this new version infringes or not, but since the person in question seems eager for a reply, I thought that readers of this site should be the ones to decide.
So … what do you think, folks? Comments gratefully accepted.
•••
Posted to MetaStuff • 2003.05.05 (Mon) • 12:13
Comments
Posted by pope52 2003.05.05, 12:30
He changed it up. Give it to him, offering to help out with coding if necessary. Kindess never hurts.
Posted by Kristian 2003.05.05, 12:30
I sincerely like the replacement he sent you, but the version that’s up there as of right now still looks too much like your design for my taste.
Posted by Allen H 2003.05.05, 12:31
As the old saying goes “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. Granted, the old design was too much of a blatant rip-off. Personally I still think the latest version of the website still looks awfully similar to your clean, elegant design (thanks to the nice choice of typography). At the end of the day, its a cheap knock-off, I think you should shrug it off. It is by no means a contender to your vastly superior ‘blog’.
Posted by Colin 2003.05.05, 12:48
Sorry, I can’t agree with any of the above comments! Just from the current design and requests for how you coded other elements in your site, this guy just doesn’t get the fact that he is flat out copying you. If you do not draw a clear line in the sand as to his infringement (colors, look & feel) then you or some other unfortunate designer will be addressing it again in the future. You are doing him a favor by educating him now. This is not my hobby, this is my business, and I am not into doing pro-bono work for competitors!
Posted by Jesse 2003.05.05, 12:58
The replacement looks okay.
Posted by Nadine 2003.05.05, 13:07
As far as I am concerned it is a near copy of your site (which he then has the gall to copyright as his own!). I think it is fair and kind of you to let your readers decide. A few have spoken above and I think they are wrong. This is your work and you have the right to not be ripped off by some schmo who complains that you don’t return his emails. (As I understand that’s what copyrights are for). He even calls his about section “colophon” … where will it end? There are a zillion ways to take someone?s concept and make it your own. How about changing the wallpaper color or fonts or font colors.
I say to the gallows with him!
Posted by Leanne 2003.05.05, 13:34
thinks
The thing that really got me, was the fact that they put a © symbol at the bottom of the page when he was blatantly copying your site.
At least he changed it, but the least he could do is change the colors etc.
There are ways to be inspired by a layout and use parts of different websites that you like to make them your own, but he didn’t even do that.
Posted by Anonymous 2003.05.05, 13:50
The replacement is purely a watered down version of the original and has that Antipixel feel. If it were me, I’d say take it down (replacement), pure and simple. Then in the email your going to send to say take it down, write another sentence which says ‘have the nouse to design your own’.
I dare say that domain is now tainted, good and proper.
Posted by Scott 2003.05.05, 13:52
Oops, that last (anonymous) comment was made by me. Brain fade.
Posted by Mike 2003.05.05, 14:04
Not very nice of him to play like he had e-mailed you asking permission first. I probably would have just gone to pirated sites dot com, but I have been accused of being rash in the past. Don’t give it to him for free!
Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com 2003.05.05, 14:10
You should submit that to http://www.pirated-sites.com/
Personally I open sourced my MT Templates so anyone who wants to use my design is free to do so.
http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jakestealthisblogdesign.php
Posted by jez 2003.05.05, 15:33
that just stinks plain and simple. where do people get off putting a copyright on someone else’s work? who gives a flying f*ck if they’ve “changed” the design, the fact of the matter is it’s not theirs to start with!
Posted by niji 2003.05.05, 16:21
yr site design is beautiful. do try to protect it. the copiers all have terrible taste, in that the way they have tried to change it a little to not be so blatant has shown that they have no taste. i dont know what yr legal rights are, but somehow get them to stop their copying. or, have them pay you the rights for it for maybe 2,000 or 3,000 Jpy per month….
Posted by sam 2003.05.05, 17:06
If you want to return the favor in a fun and unique way, remember that while “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” is the more popular quote, “Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery” could be a more appropriate action.
I would prefer he start his design from scratch. The fact that he ganked your site quite shamelessly, and went so far as to remove all your copyright notices and replace them with his own, shows he has a limited quantity of ‘good faith’ on his side. I’ve helped people out when they wanted to set up features similar to my own site, and have freely given large quantities of code to interested parties. Heck, my site design itself is CC licensed, so a direct copy would be possible. I don’t encourage it however, it just dilutes things, rather than expressing creativity.
The ‘new design’ of his is an OK effort, but it makes me realize why he decided to snag your design instead, he wasn’t able to make a good one himself.
My advice to him would be to redo it from scratch (or one of many skeletal ‘two column’ or ‘three column’ CSS layouts that are freely available), but start simple. A site doesn’t need much flair and color to be readable, clear, and nice. Then, as he improves, he can tweak things until he has a masterpiece of his own, something he can be proud of, because he devised it himself over time. Something he can happily, ethically, and legally put a copyright notice on.
Oh, and about the colophon thing, thats not really a big deal, since many many people use colophon as the name of their ‘about’ section. The name was originally used to describe the little blurb at the end of books describing the typeface and typesetting used to create the book. If you already knew that, you are probably a typography geek, and intentionally flip to the end of books to see if they have a colophon, just so you can read it and muse about their choices.
Peace, sam
Posted by Blo 2003.05.05, 17:34
“I’m not about to quote private correspondence here, but the response I got asked whether I had received this person’s first e-mail which, they mentioned, was not in their Sent box for some reason. I’m guessing because they never sent it. I checked whether I’d received mail from them before writing, but had not received any according to my records.”
In the email that I sent you asking if you had received it I offered to send you it again if you hadn’t got it but with no replies I assumed that you had got it. (I still have that email if you would like it.)
The site has been taken down until I can sort everything out with Jeremy, although it would help if he replied to my emails…
-Blo
Posted by niji 2003.05.05, 17:52
what needs sorting out?? dont steal ideas that arent yr own. period.
Posted by Brent 2003.05.05, 19:13
I agree with Colin (posted at 2003.05.05, 12:48) - he walks the plank!
Posted by Jean 2003.05.05, 20:25
I don’t really see what Blo wants from Jeremy. This should be done with. He stole, he got caught, end of story. Start again with the MT templates, and learn how to modify them (it doesn’t take that long to learn how do do it, the most basic CSS tutorial, of which there are tons on the Net, will do the trick).
Posted by Blo 2003.05.05, 20:36
The site has been taken down (At about 8am)
The thing I want to sort out is this, Jeremy said he never got my email (which I did send) that apologised for ripping the site and asked if I was allowed to adapt the design.
-Blo
Posted by Paul Michael Smith 2003.05.05, 21:22
The thing that surprises me is that blo seems to know a thing or too about CSS and XHTML from the looks of the “adapted” design, so why did he bother to copy the site in the first place ?
It’s proof to me that although some people have the basic skills required they are more like imitators where as people like Jeremy are innovators.
Of course nobody is truly creative because to do that you would have to be stuck on a desert island with no outside influences what so ever. However there is a clear and distinct difference between looking at what other people have done then taking a ‘creative influence’ or just plain TAKING what other people have done.
Just my 2c
Posted by jh 2003.05.05, 22:16
Blo —- A quick recap of the course of events for those just tuning in:
1) I discover I’m being ripped off and contact you (April 28).
2) You reply (Apr 29, 4:48:47a). You ask if I received e-mail from you previously even though this mail does not appear to be in your Sent box. You tell me that you will send it again if necessary.
3) I answer in the negative (Apr 29, 10:17:33a) and make no further mention of this mail (it’s unnecessary for me to see it). I explain that I have an obligation to myself and my clients to protect my work and therefore request you remove infringing material.
4) I receive a reply from you (Apr 29, 3:30:14p) in which you state that everything has been taken down. You then request that I “do [you] a favour” by taking a look at an attached screen-shot and letting you know if I think it infringes. You also request that I tell you how I discovered your site because it “wasn’t supposed to be live” (sorry, but if I can see it in my browser, it’s live —- and I’m not going to tell you how I discovered your site. Sorry).
5) I receive mail from you (May 2, 3:49:50p) asking me if the version you have online is OK.
6) You post a comment here this morning in which you ask why I haven’t replied to your letters.
I guess I am curious about that first, unsent (or at least unreceived) letter that you mention in (2) after all. Did you write it before or after you ripped off the site? If before, having received no reply from me, why did you go ahead and steal? If after, what did you intend to do: apologise for ripping me off and seek approval post factum?
Neither case seems particularly viable to me (let alone respectful), but then I may be missing another scenario.
I would like to have responded promptly to your letters, by the way, but it’s certainly not my first priority in cases such as this. Protecting my copyright is.
As for where I stand on the replacement version, I don’t particularly care. The direct rip-off is gone and that’s all I have time to worry about right now. The simple majority of comments above would seem to suggest avoiding derivation. I’ll say only that, long-term, you (and your readers) will get far greater satisfaction from your site if it’s your own.
There are many extremely generous people out there who make their work available under a variety of licences. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for this, but until I figure out a way to do it that’s completely acceptable to me, it’s not something that happens here. Good old-fashioned copyright applies (although it’s not without its problems). Having adopted that approach, I’m bound to defend it (the concept is meaningless otherwise). As it stands in this case, I consider that done.
Posted by jh 2003.05.05, 22:40
I also meant to thank everyone for your thoughts on the matter and for keeping it (for the most part ;-) civil.
Paul Michael Smith —-
Of course nobody is truly creative
You’re right, of course. This site owes a huge debt to a number of people. One purpose of the colophon is to address this debt in a way that I hope says “thanks!”
Incidentally (because I can’t help prattling on about words when given half a chance), “colophon” has three meanings. The word itself comes to us from the Greek by way of Late Latin where it meant “summit” or “finishing touch.” You could say that Picasso was a colophon of 20th century art, although this usage (dating from the 17C) is now rare.
By the late 18C it had come to acquire the meaning that we’re using here, and included in its embrace a publisher’s device (what today we generally call a logo) such as Alfred Knopf’s borzoi or O’Reilly’s lemur (or marmoset or whatever that little bug-eyed animal is).
Last century it acquired its third meaning (really a slight enlarging of the publisher’s device definition) of the publisher’s imprint which appears on the title page of a book (what we’d call the logo and logotype), but also often including the place and date of publication.
Posted by Anonymous 2003.05.05, 23:45
Colophon (n. historical) - an inscription at the end of a book or literary composition, often naming the author and scribe or printer, with place and date of execution, etc., as on a modern title-page: a publisher’s imprint or device, with name, date, etc. [summit, finishing touch.]
Posted by Blo 2003.05.06, 00:49
OK, I’ve been making a new design all day.
What do you think? ( http://www.digitalronan.co.uk/blo/index.html )
-Blo
Posted by John 2003.05.06, 01:56
jh, your design is the closest thing I’ve seen to art when it comes to XHTML and CSS. It’s clean, effective and attractive. Even though it seems the problem has been rectified, I’m glad you posted this entry. I know when I was redesigning my blog, I wanted to have writer thumbnails posted with the entries, similar to http://www.unsanity.org . Sure, I could’ve grabbed the source and learned how to do it. Instead, I took the time to contact Slava to find out if:
1) He would explain to me how he did it. 2) If he would allow me to use his snippet of code.
Not only did he explain how to do it and give me permission to use his code, he genuinely seem flattered that I had liked his design enough to ask. Since the day it was implemented on my site, I’ve had a thank you to him in the source. Sure, 99% of my readers will never see it, but I know its there. I’m sure if blo would have taken the time to ask you for bits and pieces of the design he liked that you would’ve helped (IE: MT Tags in Pulldowns). Instead, he blatantly ripped you off and then put his own copyright on it. Ugh! I think you were right in trying to protect “your art” and I hope you know that your readers are behind you. :)
Posted by Paul Michael Smith 2003.05.06, 02:38
Hehe thanks for that Jeremy. I like the way you work.
That is what I was trying to say, which was that everybody gets inspired by other people on a daily basis but Blo had taken it to the extreame and that was utterly wrong.
Posted by Jesper 2003.05.06, 03:38
Blo: That’s good. I’m assuming (and rather hoping) you didn’t rip that, and I think that that layout would’ve done more that perfectly well for a first design for your weblog.
I hope we’ve all learned three things from this though, Antipixel looks nice, Respect other’s art and Never mess with jh! ;)
Posted by Jesper 2003.05.06, 03:46
SIGH! So I look at Blo’s source for his ‘new design’, and what do I see?
“<p class=”hide”><strong>Note</strong>: You’re viewing the non-styled version of SimpleBits. Either your browser does not support CSS, or it is disabled. If you are using a older browser, <a href=”http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/”>learn why you should upgrade</a> your browser. Thanks. <a href=”#startcontent” accesskey=”2”>Skip to the content of this page</a></p>” (My emphasis)
So I do a Google search for SimpleBits, finds a hit and views source. The exact same notice is found, although there’s not too many similarities anywhere else.
Blo: Stop ripping other’s designs. Make a new one from scratch. It’s not that hard, okay?
Posted by tomas 2003.05.06, 04:04
I’d be giving him a lot harder time than you did, because he not only ripped the design but replaced your copyright notice with one of his own.
Carefully planned and executed theft.
Inexcusable.
Posted by Blo 2003.05.06, 04:47
I do admit it is similar to smilibits design but no I think you are accusing me off something i haven’t done.
-Blo
Posted by resonance 2003.05.06, 04:57
One of the worst things about the personal web is that it’s a sad truth that the non-corporate/non-institutional websites rely on an “honor system” for intellectual property.
One of the best things about the personal web is that it’s a incredibly liberating notion that non-corporate/non-institutional websites can rely on an “honor system” for intellectual property.
The key word, of course, being “honor”.
The best and most popular sites will always be subject to the whims of the unscrupulous. It’s hard not to let instances such as the theft of your site design, Jeremy, sour my trust of the viewing public. But I think we (I’ll be presumptuous and use we) ultimately do a good job of policing ourselves. We’ve got a bit of a neighborhood-watch-thing going on, and while it doesn’t prevent code/design/content theft or make it any more tolerable, it sure is nice to know that for the most part, we’ve “got each other’s backs”.
The problem, Jeremy, is that your code is just too damn clean. It’s too easy to figure out! My solution to the theft problem is to make my code absolutely horrendous. I consider it a ‘feature’ of my site. [this last paragraph being tongue-in-cheek, of course]
Posted by Jesper 2003.05.06, 05:48
Blo: If you didn’t rip it, then why is the notice div there identical to the one on SmileBits, INCLUDING THE NAME SMILEBITS? I’ve saved the html file so there’s no use in denying it.
Posted by Jesper 2003.05.06, 05:53
Okay, here we go. Blo’s source before and after I pointed out it was still sporting the wrong site’s ahem div. Directly from my cache. You judge.
Posted by Mike 2003.05.06, 06:16
How ironic that after I compliment Jeremy on his beautiful web design in my own blog, the word gets out about this stealing of code.
While I’m not the most skiled coder (nor do I have the best eye for matching colors), the best solution I’ve found to the lack-of-vision problem for my weblog is using and adapting one of the many free templates for blogs found at hundreds of sites on the Internet.
I use one of these (from Book of Styles at my site. Many of these generous creators require only a link back in order to gain permission to use them. I find them quite useful, and it helps me gain CSS knowledge while having at least a base to start from.
Posted by Blo 2003.05.06, 06:28
I have backups of MY site as designed it curtsy of Ultraedit.
It saves a backup of the thing you are working on (index1.bak, index2.bak…) every 30 minutes so I have all these so you can see the site evolving.
Also I have all the .psd’s from photoshop.
So I have no idea how that div got there, the only two possible things are being hacked (Very unlikely) and you have made an error. I don’t want to accuse you off anything, as you are just an innocent 3rd party in all of this.
Also the when I did rip Antipixel I admitted it, apologised and moved on. Why wouldn’t I admit it now if I had ripped another site?
God this page is getting long…
-Blo
Posted by mutter 2003.05.06, 11:40
I was wondering why the name digitalronan seemed familiar.
Its because he rips designs quite often.
Several other site owners have mentioned the rips, I just wish the links were easier to find! The problem is, those that he is ripped dont link to him using digitalronan, they use terms like “this guy ripped my site” or “take a look at this”.
I would suggest that while ripping a site on one hand is a form of flattery - you have a fabulous design, they want it.
On the other hand (and the one I feel is more correct) they show a complete lack of respect and pure lazyness.
Part of learning to design and code is to look at, admire and desiminate another’s design, and perhaps even try to recreate it, using your OWN code, from scratch.
Mister DigitalRonan, I implore you to learn from the dialogue here.
Do not use anyone’s code, whether in part or whole, without first contacting them and asking if it’s ok. If you don’t get a reply, assume its NOT ok.
It’s such a simple principle to follow.
Posted by JMBR 2003.05.06, 12:31
Why are people wasting their time with this guy? I can’t believe he has the gaul to rip a site and then ask for advise on whether his next site is a rip. We don’t care.
If I had ripped a site and got caught, I’d be sooo embarassed that I would apologize and then promptly get a whole new url name and online identity, so that no one would remember what a thief I was.
I can’t believe I am going to waste forty-five more seconds of my precious life to give final advice here, but take your time. There’s nothing wrong with looking at the sites you like and seeing how they coded their sites, but you then must remove yourself from their ideas and get away from your computer. Take a long walk and then storyboard the way you want your site to work. Take fifteen minutes and draw it on paper. Then create a stylesheet and some graphics that say something about yourself or your site and then take a couple of weeks building it out. After you have done all this then ask fine folks like Jeremy if they can critique your ideas… then after all that WORK you might be ready to go live. Obviously you have good taste in what to steal, take that taste and about a month to learn how you can do it yourself.
Posted by Jesper 2003.05.06, 23:48
Blo: maybe your site was BASED on his code, but evolved (it looks it). This is a stepup, and one method I used up and until I started the weblog that would eventually become Waffle.
I definitely recommend coding from scratch next time though, it just gives you way more control and you don’t feel locked in with what you started on but are free to form it yourself.
Posted by celina 2003.05.07, 12:37
have the guy fix his archives template or any others that mirror this site too.
Posted by Tonetheman 2003.05.07, 23:29
Uhhh… not too burst your bubble but I have copied most everything I have ever done in HTML (and CSS for that matter). And so have you. Consider it a complement that someone is now copying you.
Most importantly I do not think that you could sue someone for copying your style sheets. If you can I am going to write a program that will generate some random colors and style and then start attacking everyone with lawyers.
Good luck
Posted by Paul 2003.05.14, 07:21
Nothing is original. Don’t want someone copying your code? Don’t upload it. Period. Copyright is outdated, new ideas are simply old ideas rehashed. Bah!
Posted by James 2003.08.29, 06:23
I really don’t understand why this issue got everyone upset. If you truely consider yourself an artist and you are conrfidant in your abilities then why would you get bent out of shape when someone who isn’t try’s to emulate your work? This is how the world works, across all industries. Weather it be fashion, architecture, shoe design, cars, everything is reproduced and copied. Haven’t you ever tried to copy a work from a favorite artist? Do you know how many reproductions/copies of Stary Night are out there. No offense, but this site is not a Van Gough. Who cares?
Posted by Richard Wanderman 2003.10.13, 21:15
I love the way this site looks and works and come back to it often just to gaze and be calmed and excited at the same time. Here, the site itself is one of the main ideas, the content, and this is where the tension lies.
I went through this with HyperCard (finding my scripts in other people’s stacks) and go through it regularly with my writing that’s published on the web in various places. Others do too.
At first I put as much energy into fighting this as there is in this long thread but after a while my only rationale was that it was flattering that others liked things that I’d built or thought.
However, publishing is sharing and sharing of any kind puts us to the test when it comes to coming up with original ideas and being honest about where our ideas are coming from.
We’re certainly all standing on the backs of others and acknowledging that is important and at the same time its important to educate people about where the line is between influence and rip-off.
Take protectionism to its extreme and one might as well use paper and print a book which is a lot harder to clone. Using the web as a publishing medium is to put the influence/rip-off line to the test.
Advice: let it go and put energy into your designs and the content of this wonderful site. Those of us who visit here regularly will continue to admire what you’ve done.
Posted by Rose 2005.12.08, 08:40
Has someone stolen your template design or theme, maybe your logo ? if so post about them here! Don?t let someone rip-off your site, let others know.
http://www.invision-graphics.com/forum-45.html
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
