Trademark infringement and copyright infringement are different things.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and have edited original comment emphasise it. I had vaguely thought there was some provision in the DMCA for remedies for other types of IP infringement as well as copyright, but haven't really looked into it that much. Then again, given how much easier it is to (potentially) infringe some trademarks, the severity of the remedy (immediate takedown, with perhaps later return) does seem like overkill.

I wasn't arguing that it was easy, merely possible. The examples all do seem to be large companies with significant legal budgets and generally strong or exclusive brands though, which does indicate it being quite rare.

Maybe if you compare them side by side, I don't know. When I first saw UI Kit however I immediately thought LayerVault had 'open sourced' their design as it looked so similar. I later learned the kit was created by a 3rd party.

Layervault are going after Microsoft now with their "Metro style"... those copycats!

Flat-UI doesn't seem to have any assets that mirror anything on LayerVault's.

I would say that is the issue in a nutshell. LayerVault is claiming they are the exclusive rights-holders, yet absolutely nothing in Flat-UI is the same as anything on LayerVault's public site.

The only possible angle remaining would be if LayerVault had a bunch of these elements behind their paywall... something tells me that's not the case.

Edit: Alright, I admit the colour Turquoise is used on both pages. Still, I'm fairly confident turquoise boxes (of differing shapes!) are not copyrightable.

Trademark, exactly. Not copyright.

I think we're all upset more about the attitude and approach of how LV went about this.

You can't patent Colors / Helvetica Neue / Rounded Corner Squares. It just reeks of tactics similar to patent trolls.

I think a while back there was blog theme used that was similar to Svbtle, but there was no take down notice or such nonsense. It generated a decent discussion and conversations about something that's too close in style.

Look at @layervault on Twitter, they are just getting destroyed right now. Even by designers, their main target audience.

If they went along the lines like 'Hey, this is pretty similar to our design. We think it's cool we inspired you but can you deviate it from us a bit more or re-name the project to like Layervault Bootstrap?' I mean why not - have your name in the same conversation as Twitter Bootstrap!

A total botched and missed opportunity.

I really really like LayerVault's style a lot and there's no doubt that Flat-UI is influenced by it, but it's not as if LV created this in a vaccuum. Dribbble (which is my main way of watching design trends) has had this stuff pretty common over the past three years.

They look visually similar. As well as dozens of other pieces/sites.

Oh dear. Now I have to stick with Twitter Bootstrap.

"Heavily inspired" != copyright infringement. Sorry. Patent infringement would be closer but it is not copyright infringement.

It's unique and top-notch if you live in the bubble LV seems to think people do; even Google's been using a similar approach for a few years now as they focus more on design. They also got on the defensive recently regarding Pixelapse; a product that essentially does the same thing LV does (but better in a few regards), citing that the concept for a "Github for designers" was "stolen" and using screenshots to compare the two, which were both basically Dropbox's sync/manage drop-down.

Allan says Designmodo was not being cooperative in emails on the issue, and I think that's the point where you take it to a blog post with examples of the case you're trying to make, rather than forcing Github to shut down an entire project that goes outside of just the illustrations in question.

Their approach seems less about actually proving their worth by focusing on their product and ignoring outside "competition", and more about trying to shut down those that they feel are a threat to them. Not sure what exactly that says about them or the confidence they have in their own product, but it's a bad attitude to have towards innovation and inspiration.

Absolutely!

Takedown notice was also (briefly) in that site too http://imgur.com/a/u0ez8

Agreed. Imagine if LayerVault had taken a more transparent and community oriented approach and said: hey guys, the flat gui project is really cool and we're delighted that it got inspired by our stuff, namely x, y, z (comparison screenshots).

It makes them look incompetent when it comes to internet law. Any one want to test their "unlimited storage" claim?

imgur please. Only one I can view at work =/

It's basically this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5331891 which is unconstructive.

Hi. We deleted it, but posted a much better comment here: http://bruun.co/2013/03/06/who-owns-flat

The blog is our CTO's.

Without some extraordinary explanation by Layer Vault detailing an actual theft of files or copying of their actual work, it sounds like Layer Vault just did a major scumbag move that harms designers everywhere.

And that's a shame because I like Layer Vault a lot.

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I'm happy I'm not the only one that wants these answered before I jump to conclusions and bash LayerFaul OR the Flat UI people.

To add some context, LayerVault posted a blog post outlining "The Flat Design Era"[1]. While the term has been used before in various context, to me, the post seemed to ignite a lot of discussion in the tech/design community about flat design (and by relation, skeumorphs, etc.,)

LayerVault is a vocal proponent of the "Flat UI" approach and uses it almost as a signature look and feel for their product. In the follow up discussions, the blog post author has said that no post or discussion fully understands what he meant [2].

I can't read the takedown letter or discussion where I am (for some reason github is blocked). But based on what I've seen, the kit is similar to LayerVault's approach to employing Flat UI. That combined with the blogpost, I wouldn't be surprised if LayerVault felt that their look and feel was infringed upon. Obviously, this doesn't mean that they actually were infringed upon in the eye of the law, even if the kit was derived from LayerVault.

As a designer, I can sympathize with LayerVault's issue with the kit (I'm making assumptions), but with such a design, I really wonder how valid their complaint is within the law.

[1]http://layervault.tumblr.com/post/32267022219/flat-interface... [2]Designer News thread that I have no link to at the moment.

Right. And doing it in a vague way (not specifying WHICH illustrations they supposedly own the copyright to). Most of us who have looked at the illustrations side-by-side see their claim of owning copyright to be unfounded, for lots of reasons:

1) None of the illustrations in Flat UI are identical to LayerVault's illustrations. Derived works? Maybe. But under the law, that's okay.

2) Looking at illustrations from the Noun Project, and color palettes from Google and elsewhere, we see the same similarities that we do between LayerVault and Flat UI. If Flat UI is guilty of copyright infringement as LayerVault asserts, then LayerVault is most certainly guilty of copyright infringement from elsewhere.

3) Copyright isn't even the right legal vehicle for this debate. LayerVault could conceivably deem its icons to be trademarks, and show a likelihood of confusion when compared to Flat UI's icons. But LV using an icon set as a trademark would be unprecedented, and difficult to argue. (And even if that were the case, the Noun Project could just as easily claim LV infringed on their trademark.)

Overall, if LayerVault is claiming they own the copyright to illustrations used in Flat UI, they're flat-out wrong. And that's where the problem comes in - filing a fraudulent DMCA notice is bad business.

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.

  | the host has to restore the removed
  | content within a certain time period

10 ~ 14 days, IIRC.

Could be the death of a website / community.

LayerVault has posted details on what they felt was infringing and appears to misunderstand (willfully or otherwise) the purpose of a DMCA notice. There is no evidence that artwork identical to that of LayerVault has been used in FlatUI. While some artwork is similar, that is another issue entirely, an issue outside that of the DMCA.

Yesterday, somebody posted a toolkit [0] on Github Pages consisting of a color pallette and some UI elements that are basically "flat" -- no gradients, drop shadows, etc, just color and shape.

Today, LayerVault [1], a company that makes 'github for designers,' sent a DCMA github a DCMA Takedown Notice [2], claiming that they own the exclusive rights to "the artwork contained within Flat UI."

The creators of Flat UI are disputing this in the linked comment thread, but we do not know if they've actually sent a DCMA Counter-Notification [3].

Incidentally, Flat UI's page probably did violate somebody's copyright, but not necessarily LayerVault's. No, they used part of Big Buck Bunny [4] without proper attribution [5] under its Creative Commons license [7].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321603

[1]: https://layervault.com/

[2]: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/735e17614cca63102b8414...

[3]: https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown

[4]: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5322357

[7]: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/about/

It makes me happy that Designer News has (what I consider at least) noticeably inferior design to HN.

Have we established exactly which elements are allegedly infringing copyright? I've gone though both websites and I don't see it...

I found a link to it... please only use for investigative purposes:

http://ge.tt/19rXMGa/v/0?c

http://designmodo.com/flat-free/

By the looks of it, I don't think they are. But I think Github will take it down since its hosted in the US?

EDIT: After rereading your question, I'm assuming you're referring to a situation similar to my third example scenario, that might best address it.

Generally:

- If the content provider is outside of the United States, DMCA is not valid whatsoever. However, some organizations, especially in English speaking countries, will honor it simply as a notice of infringement.

- If the individual sending the complaint is outside the United States, but the content provider is within the US, usually the content provider will cooperate anyway to protect themselves from legal obligation under Safe Harbor provisions.

- If the end user receiving the complaint is outside the United States and the content provider is within the US then the content provider should still honor the counter notice and would be covered by Safe Harbor provisions. I'm not sure on the specifics of this, however you must at minimum consent to the jurisdiction of US Federal Law for any further actions.

For the most part, the content provider / hosting company will do what is in their best interest to legally safeguard themselves, with little regard for end user rights. Generally speaking, the larger the company the moreso this applies.

Github seems like a reasonable organization, and if you submit a counter notification in valid format they should act accordingly.

Also, I see the Chilling Effects URL is getting hammered, here's a static version which you can modify: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

While unrelated to this issue specifically, something which is interesting to note is that in a several year old paper from Vanderbilt University, they specifically mention a provision dealing with enforcing the DMCA on foreign websites. While this provision has never been used to my knowledge it does exist and is quite scary considering the implications:

While direct action against a foreign site is not possible in U.S. courts, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) allows courts to order the blocking of infringing sites. Section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii) (the “Foreign Site Provision”) permits an order to restrain an Internet service provider (“ISP”) from providing access to a “specific, identified, online location outside the United States.” Therefore this provision, with some limitations, may be used to block U.S. access to infringing foreign sites.

Good catch, updated original post to reflect this.

True! - https://twitter.com/awmichel/status/309341548980625409

Apple does go after other designs that are similar to theirs, but (big BUT), they don't use DMCA unless there was an actual copy of their artwork/software. They file an injunction with a judge to stop sales of the product and/or sue them in civil court.

Not sure what "artwork" was copied if any.

If it was icons, I think a court said recently icons cannot be copyrighted?

Ah maybe it was thumbnails cannot be copyrighted.

Coders Twitter account https://twitter.com/iurevych

Of course it is. A DMCA take down has people look at their content and download it. Any reasonably good business person would be able to twist this into sales.

I think he is looking at it as good from the the side getting the notice, not giving it.

doesnt bother shaking head in dismay, just wanders off

> Eh, they're just logos

shakes head in dismay and wanders off

Both look like an inverted F-clef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_clef#F-clefs

The part that's "under penalty of perjury" is only the statement that you are authorized to act on behalf of a copyright holder, not that your claims are true.

The actual content holder, and the content provider are then eligible to counter-sue whomever filed the false takedown notice, applicable examples of this include:

OPG v. Diebold (2004):

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2007):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp (Overview)

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorde... (Court Orders)

let me guess, the next one you're going to report is microsoft, or google?

The only thing that is not completely generic imo is the color scheme FlatUI picked, which is similar to the scheme on LayerVault. But it's not exactly the same (I checked, everything is quite close though). Don't think something like that warrants an action like this at all.

Anyone got a clone of flat-ui?

this works too :)

^this.

They have proven to be an closed elitist circle and they go against the web openness nature of the web and development.

This would be much easier to do if they had included any specifics in the DMCA notice itself or in their public statements since then. Part of the de rigueur reaction is because DMCA actions often lack this kind of evidence.

I'd be much happier if we as a community learned to read, research and formulate opinions before picking up pitchforks.

He only mentions that it looks similar - which isn't enough to file a DMCA takedown. When does it become problematic? When there's an identical icon in both sets, which I haven't been able to find so far.

Of all the links I have seen posted so far, I have yet to see anything lifted from their site.

There's no proof. All they've said so far seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what copyright actually is, as well as a general case of business immaturity.

Similarities in design doesn't warrant a DMCA takedown notice, period.

What he says sounds kind of reasonable.

But then when I see the side by sides that have been posted here, even the things that have been taken down, I get a big "fuck off" stuck in my throat.

Similar is not copy. Unless you want the same environment for copyright that we have right now with software patents.

This guy deserves the negative opinions - his DMCA request is completly invalid (he just gives the URL or their front page an no specific illustrations he claims are infringing), and the images that were removed from flat UI after the request are somewhat similar but not at all an infringement.

Unless he gives some solid proof, he does not deserve the Benoit of the doubt.

The initial ones were very reactionary about boycotting Layer Vault and so on. The DMCA is super wishy washy, and I can't say whether this is a valid use or not because IANAL.

I don't see any specific comparison or illustrations in the two links jgj posted. Do you?

Those tweets sound like classic whining in face of collective pitchfork stabbing.

Take a look at the comparison here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332635

To my eyes, it does not look like 'blatant copying.' The icons look similar, but so do many others. If LV's evidence comes down to "looks too similar, but isn't actually a copy," then the DMCA is not the avenue for pursuing this.

I like that idea. The License to the OPUS codec uses it. If you sue another user of the opus codec, you must stop using opus. :)

I like the way how Github handles DMCA requests by the way, everything's out in the open, including the lame claims people come up with.

Maybe they own a few hex codes.

so disappointing when our generation(s) act to limit the Internet. LayerVault please stop, we really dig ur stuff.

Reply from LayerVault - https://news.layervault.com/stories/1992-layervault-whats-up...

That's a 404.

I'd love a copy too, actually. Just the CSS. username @gmail.com as well, if you'd be so kind.

Hi! Could I please also get a copy? sskung at cmu dot edu

Might you send me the sass files? I want to use it in a recent project too. s at zenhacks.org

Note that the matter of the "newspaper" icon is not the reason for the DMCA request, but a sidenote.

Yeah, that's a pretty strange claim. Same concept, but completely different details.

There might be some ground for trademark infringement if the original icon was important, but no way is that a copyright issue.

They've been posted upthread, and they aren't copies.

What he's claiming is not the perfect copy of the shape, but the style. It's a clear "copy" too, very very similar. In the end, if you change a pixel from that you can make a "not the same" icon, don't you think?

We can discuss on how many differences but it will end on nothing. I can express that, 2 o 3 differences are not enough to claim "different" and you can claim than 1 will not be enough too.

To me, they're clearly wrong. But if the guy copied the art and pasted it, that's another story.

I agree.

If it's the best example he found to justify the takedown notice, it was really not a smart move...

Though much is boilerplate, it's also irrelevant.

Here, we have a DMCA takedown notice that lacks two of the necessary elements: specific identification of the copyrighted work infringed as well as the infringing material.

It doesn't take much to meet these elements, which together would have also allayed public concerns. Barring that, however, it's not a valid notice. As a result, Github has no duty to act as the courts have explicitly affirmed.

Striking Similarity is the standard. While the standard there is not crystal clear, you expect to hear things like, 'hey, they have the same bug we do!' and 'is that one of our comments?!!'.

Web folks these days have some strange ideas about copyright, particularly as it relates to an overall 'site feel'. Unfortunately, this 'site feel' is not a single work, in the same way that you couldn't successfully keep others from making art in your 'style'.

The proper way to get a monopoly on a 'feel' is with one of those ridiculous design patents. That'd be inexcusable, because these patents mean nothing except that you intend to spend a lot of time making lawsuits based on poorly examined, impossibly wide patents.

Wow, that's absolutely not plagiarism. Just generic concepts that have been interpreted similarly.

That may have divined inspiration from the LV icons, but that is in no way copied.

Wow, that is considerably less egregious than I had imagined it would be.

From my initial reading, it sounded like images were outright copied, or copied and slightly altered. That is hardly the case in these examples.

If there aren't any stronger examples than these, then LayerVault wouldn't seem to have much of a basis for all this.

Three gears together doesn't seem to be that novel an idea either: http://thenounproject.com/noun/gears/#icon-No8949

The prototypical talking head with speech bubble: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/installation/comple...

As a graphic designer I was pre-disposed to siding with you against the pitchfork wielding pirates, but that's ridiculous. Bullshit takedown. Folded newspaper done in a minimalist style? Cogs? Face talking?

Is this a prank or art piece troll?

Sounds like a non-reply reply lacking specific/concrete examples of what was infringed that they needed to issue a DMCA takedown.

LayerVault needs to illustrate their case with clear-cut examples or else they are coming across as ye olde IP Troll and thus deserving the collective pitchfork stabbing that DMCA hammer wielding requires.

Thanks, I figured that part out. I was more replying to this response in the context of the grandparent, which made little sense to me at first, and even less sense when he edited it in some strange attempt to distinguish between "copying", which he seems to be accusing the Flat-UI creator of, and "copyright violation", the legal prerequisite for filing a DMCA takedown, which is what the rest of the comments on this post seem to be discussing.

Try adding "flat" to that search criteria, then how many ways do you get?

Apple's clock design was indistinguishable from the original. This is not.

Apple's wasn't an exact copy either. (The Swiss railway clock design was nicer.)

There were slight differences in hand lengths, removal of the logo (obviously), and stroke widths.

This is the essence of what is wrong with copyright law: "Apple paid $21 million for a clock design."

I believe in the value and importance of design, but the money/value ratio of design IP has gotten out of hand.

The clock in question, aside from being an exact copy, was an example of a trademark infringement not copyright infringement. It's very different. In fact trademarks must be defended against infringement or they can be considered void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights

If he had copied, even in just a similar way, LayerVault's logo to use as an icon (and assuming LV trademarked it) then this discussion would be pretty different.

Did you read the article? They were sued over trademark infringement. Trademark has nothing to do with copyright or the DMCA.

This isn't at all related to my comment. Did you reply to the wrong one?

Copyright also grants the exclusive right to create derivative works. Using another work as the basis of your own, even with zero direct copying, can be an infringement of that right. I doubt that happened here, and proving it would be near-impossible, but we should be cognizant of what copyright actually is.

All it manages to show is that as a designer he is not very original and maybe influenced a bit too much about what he is inspired by. But this in itself is not a copyright violation.

The analog clock designs with the red seconds hand are all simplified versions of they style popularized by the swiss railway clock: https://www.google.com/search?q=swiss+railway+clock that can be seen in many clock products: https://www.google.com/search?q=clock+red+second+hand&hl...

Trademark and trade dress have nothing to do with a DMCA takedown though.

And besides, establishing an infringement of trademark and that it was then infringed will require an absolute mountain of cash and lawyers and time. I'm assuming they have nothing relating to the IP they're annoyed about on paper and so they'd need to show that they 'owned' it in equity. They'd almost certainly go bankrupt before they have a chance of winning a case in court.

(IANAL... yet)

I don't think it's a copyright issue, but between the colors

The only thing you can file a DMCA takedown notice for is a copyright issue. That's it. By filing a DMCA takedown notice you are asserting there is a 'copyright issue'.

Layervault didn't design that clock. There is no logic, just the definition. You should look up "common knowledge" and "public domain."

If you recall apple is paying $21m to license the Swiss Railway clock design.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/10/apple-reportedly-p...

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t look like a copyright infringement to me. I cannot see any artwork that was directly lifted. The icons may be superficially similar but they are no copies.

Filing a DMCA request when you don't have a very solid copyright claim can be dangerous:

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15

I doubt this case will escalate to that, but at the very least I think I can safely say LayerVault is the loser here. I was only scarcely aware of LayerVault previously with no specific opinion and now after hearing the claims and seeing the supposed "proof" I have a negative opinion. And for what gain?

As others have pointed out, Allan's "reply" is quite the non-reply with the lack of concrete proof and evidence of the supposed "copyright infringement". What I personally found interesting, however, was Allan's initial reaction to the Flat UI Kit on Twitter: "Has nothing to do with us. Very distasteful."[1]

Later on, after the pitchforks had showed up, he tweeted the following: "It's neat that someone made a flat ui kit"[2]

That tune sure changed quickly!

[1] https://twitter.com/Allan/status/308937462221254657

[2] https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309346292902014976

I doubt they sought any. Presumably any half decent lawyer would tell them that there's absolutely no breach of copyright.

Did you realize that you were doing something illegal (and seriously abusive) by responding to this with a DMCA takedown?

Wow, I never looked at DN before and I don't think I will start now. In that thread they come across as thuggish scumbags who don't care about evidence and believe that anyone should be able to use the legal system to bulldoze competitors doing "similar" work.

Also, this Allan guy whoever he is, is dripping with self-importance.

It's pretty obvious that these icons are not copies of the originals. They are very similar, but clearly independently produced. It's a bit tenuous to apply copyright law here. Copyright is for the act of copying information, not style.

Trademarks can legally protect a particular style, but trademark law isn't enforced through DMCA requests.

Eyes that aren't bleeding are so overrated.

The web App Store descriptions and reviews appear to be low contrast to me. For example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wordament/id580935508?mt=8

It's what happens when you design a page in photoshop. take a step back, look at the whole page without trying to pick out any details, and the page is generally very attractive.

The problem is, of course, a good page design should try to call out specific detail.

Yeah, when I went to the tour page, I was trying to figure out why the whole page was greyed out.

To be fair, a copyright message isn't something we need tons of contrast on. There are definitely places that could use extra contrast in their designs, but the copyright in their footer isn't one of them.

I hope you realize that the main audience of layervault and designer news is designers.

That statement disturbs me a bit, because it seems to imply that contrast and readability aren't important to designers, and that designers are grudgingly humouring us normals when they make designs with legible text sizes in readable colour combinations for our ugly utilitarian sites.

I don't think that's true, though. I've been lucky enough to work with some very talented designers with the ability to make things that are both elegant and readable. Anything else is just narcissistic posing, after all.

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 ...

This is the most helpful post here. Nobody else seemed to have tracked down what they were specifically talking about.

They look sort of the same? Three gears in a circle. A guy with a chat bubble in a kinda same style?

You can't issue a DCMA based on sort of look a likes. Or everyone would be DCMAing everyone else.

So the entire DCMA is invalid.

Any else can also see it for themselves by using Google's cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:designm...

For being a design oriented company, LayerVault can't choose type colors worth shit. I can barely read any of the body text on nearly every page of their site.

They need to read up on W3's proposed contrast minimums: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#visual-audio-contrast-contrast

Does anyone have a active subscription to Layervault?

Here's the Flat UI designs: http://designmodo.github.com/Flat-UI/

LV is saying that illustrations/artwork was the reason for the notice so if anyone have artwork on the dashboard they can compare that'd be great (cause I can't find any copied artwork from their main site).

Layervault https://layervault.com/

The issue is artwork/illustration.

What I personally don't understand is that if DesignModo did actually copy assets from LayerVault, why doesn't LV name said assets and possibly include screenshots or whatever in the DMCA claim? Or make a post about it. Or really, anything that would include the specific information so that people wouldn't be left guessing. As evident by the reactions, not being specific here only serves to make LV's claims seem unsubstantial. I'm personally rather doubtful about their validity for the same reason as well.

Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous that a DMCA takedown can even be "valid" without specifying what exactly was infringed - "I am the exclusive rights holder for the artwork contained within Flat UI, Free Web User Interface Kit" isn't exactly saying much.

Everything in design is inspired. This has been a basis for debate since the beginning of copyright law but it has been decided for a long time that inspiration alone is in no way infringement.

Seems like their complaining about the news icon. Here's the DN icon and the flat-ui icon side by side: https://acr-skitch.s3.amazonaws.com/news.png-20130306-130455...

I know that its a bit of a stretch but it wouldn't have surprised me if the head/bubble icon came up during the email conversation that preceded the DMCA being filed though.

Doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you're going to have everything that potentially infringes LV's work you might as well put the stupid ones too. Plus it's now missing which makes it a bit suspicious (though the replacement is far better IMO which would explain the head's absence too)

And google is next victim - http://cl.ly/NO8C

EDIT: When I say i'm not into it, I don't mean I mind people using things I've made as building blocks for their own creations. I just think if you're going to use something, make something new/better out of it.

I think that if they hadn't gone DMCA on Design Modo there would be a lot more sympathy here. Until LV shows that copyright was infringed (show us the exact copies), I'm on the side of "the DMCA was used incorrectly here and even maliciously."

Always With Honor should go after LayerVault. Saul Bass should go after Always With Honor. Picasso should go after Saul Bass.

Any designer that doesn't understand that design is an iterative process, shouldn't be a designer anymore.

Colour schemes are irrelevant to the DCMA as they can't be copyrighted, though they can be trademarked in some circumstances. Either way there isn't a relevant infringement.

Hope it wasn't the basis for the DMCA takedown...

s/Fluid/Flat

"In addition, the color schemes have been claimed to be identical: http://pixxel.co/feed/layervault-issues-dmca-takedown

Flat UI has more than 20 colors. LV just 7?...

Does this mean I'm not allowed to use Google any more because they're using that colour palette on something that's free...?

Josef Müller-Brockmann (from the 60s): http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2716/4415331726_e98dd8f7c1.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2790/4414564409_974b828fbc.jpg

At that point it time I would definitely consider you a choir singer, and rightly so.

And at THIS point in time, they DO file the DMCA thing.

Even if they self-correct, it's how they'll be treated. They just tapped into a massive vein of loathing for vague DMCA notices (particularly on the design trend front), and did it quite effectively. In the case of incendiary actions with ugly consequences, once is enough to brand you.

Here is good point view - http://manufacturednormalcy.com/?p=70

If LayerVault made a mistake and apologized, sure. But one look at their twitter page & their response on designer news implies no apology is forthcoming. So, they are copyright trolls and bullies. They are not only running against the spirit of the law, but also the letter of it.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

The term refers to entities who are in the business of enforcing patents they aren't generally even using in the marketplace. This is distinct from someone who actually thinks their work is being affected, as is the case here (even though in this case it seems to be overblown).

It doesn't make them a troll (IMO, you need to have a pattern of behavior to be a real troll) but it makes them potentially guilty of perjury, which is kind of a big deal.

DMCAs shouldn't be filed lightly (unless you have the legal resources of the RIAA/MIAA/etc to dissuade your targets from retaliation).

Not a lawyer, and haven't talked to a lawyer? Don't file a DMCA no matter how butthurt you are about being 'copied'. Just because it is relatively easy to do doesn't mean you should do so in the spur of the moment. It is a Real Legal Thing with Real Ramifications, and this is good because it limits the amount to which bad actors can abuse it, but it also means you should be really sure you're the victim of copyright violations prior to using it yourself.

Legal issues should be dealt with by attorneys, period. Mishandled legal issues can, and frequently do, become very messy and expensive.

5 minutes and then 10 days until github is allowed to act on the counternotice?

So what is the threshold? Two made up DMCA notices? One hundred made up DMCA notices?

It totally does. It means that you make an assertion you OWN something you didn't create.

That makes you the worst kind of troll out there, a knowingly lying one.

Maybe a troll in training? Or a garden variety of troll?

That's not quite the threshold.

It's a solemn legal claim, with consequences if they lie.

And the people claimed against can file a counter claim.

(DMCA is a terrible law, and needs to be fixed.)

Picasso never said that. Jobs misquoted. But the real quote from T.S. Eliot is better: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.”

This seems to be a massive PR blunder for the LV guys. They could have put up a blog post enumerating how many of their (and others') designs were ripped off (which is not the same thing as copyright infringement) and probably garnered some internet sympathy. Now, by misusing the much-hated DMCA takedown notice they've positioned themselves in the same camp with all the DMCA bullies we have grown to loathe.

Maybe I've had my head in the sand for far too long, but I had never heard of LayerVault until today, and I know them now for all the wrong reasons.

I find it somewhat silly that no matter what trend you follow, someone will always be there, waiting to pounce.

This isn't the mid 2000's, "First" posts were childish back then, and "First" claims are the same now.

...and seriously at the colour schemes. The flat colour trend is basically the same as a new art movement (it's only pastel colours made more vibrant). I predict that with the current trend being Real -> Flat, the next phase will be a new form of Pointillism.

If we really wanted to be picky, you could draw comparisons between the way that LV do human faces (see bottom of the Tour page) and the old Mac OS logo.

Designmodo announced Flat UI Free v.1.1 is public Now! Download updated version - http://designmodo.com/flat-free/ PSD & HTML (Twitter Bootstrap based)!

I can't help but think this sort of thing is going to happen more and more as we move towards a flat/minimalist UI.

I've read comments (not on HN) from people who have endorsed the DMCA takedown because of their personal ethics and morals rather than knowledge of the law. Particularly one who claimed that the similar colour palettes between LV and Flat UI justified the takedown - even though colour palettes themselves are currently not copyrightable subject matter. To win on those grounds you'd need a genius (and crazy) lawyer and a judge who is either asleep at the wheel or bribed. Then you'd lose on appeal anyway.

Colours can be only trademarked. Using that colour is not a copyright violation. Hence no DMCA.

It makes me sad that as we all move towards minimalist design startup founders will need to know IP law better than a few years ago. Some of this is due to trolling and some because of a mislead or otherwise naive understanding of the law like I mentioned above. It's just adding pressure on founders that we don't really need and more work for lawyers.

A lot of us are doing whatever we're doing for the first time and that makes us (potentially) easy targets. A better knowledge of the law in this scenario might have prevented everything from blowing up like it has. But Flat UI and Layervault wouldn't have had as much energy put into the product and so everyone suffers.

Then again I'm in law school right now so at least I know there's a job in all of this if i ever need it :-/

I guess I just wish we could stop bickering about stuff like this and get on with building cool stuff.

And neither do they (LV).

Trademark is not copyright.

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.

I have yet to see any evidence that the Flat UI folks violated any copyrights. It doesn't look like the Flat UI guys made verbatim copies of any of LV's art, nor does it look like they took LV's art and altered it to hide its origins.

It looks more like someone came from the viewpoint of "let's make some icons like LayerVault's," which may or may not be an IP violation, but it certainly is not a violation of copyright.

If LV knows differently, they certainly don't appear to be interested in telling us how they know, hence the pitchforks.

You have a very poor understanding of DMCA if you think that. There is no way that law can apply here.

Have you seen the icons so you can judge it for yourself?

I have. At best, it's inspired by the LV ones.

I agree with this. I'm just pointing out that without even observing the icons in question I can assert that no theft occurred.

And LV isn't going after them for turquoise, but for specific illustrations, which are copyrightable.

No. The illustrations were not direct copies.

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.

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.

With LayerVault I saw similarities to Always With Honor, Bobby McKenna, or hundreds of other artists doing the exact same visual style with UI design. All artists and designers copy, distort, rehash, re-contextualize. We have championed this process and those artists for hundreds of years.

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.

realize that they drew inspiration from LayerVault

if (inspiration.drawnfrom("us")) { file.DMCA(); }

Anyone can provide a mirror ?

What's kind of ridiculous is that LayerVault took a lot of inspiration (I repeat, A LOT) from Hacker News with regards to the design of their discussion site. From the URL, the minimalism, and the link design. Heck, even the name is copied -- Designer News? Really?

I guess pg should send a DMCA takedown notice to them, then.

I don't care for the whole "flatUI" trend, but I REALLY can't stand this kind of blatant abuse of the DMCA (which itself can be argued to be an abuse of common sense).

Congratulations to LayerVault on their biggest day of traffic ever. Whether this brew-ha-ha was intentional or not, a lot more people are now aware of them than before today.

I like browsing their Designer News links on a daily basis, but I would think twice about signing up for a service run by people with questionable character and morals, which is the feeling I am coming away with after reading through this thread.

This whole thing could have been handled a lot better and with far more professionalism.

It is still available for download on their site: http://designmodo.com/flat-free/

You can't copyright a color pallet. You can't copyright an icon concept.

Sending DMCA take-downs without full intent to prosecute and full conviction that your copyrights have been violated is not only illegal but shameful.

The reality is that DesignModo is not new to this.

I have been waiting for this to happen for a while. Their "Bricks UI" is an extremely blatant copy of Google Ventures' web site, and it's weird nothing happened there.

http://www.googleventures.com/ http://designmodo.com/the-bricks-addons/

I'm not on either side, but it's just painful to watch the reactions on HN. It seems like a lot of the commenters were just closed down somewhere waiting for the right occasion to blame some copyright enforcer.

I think this serves as a great testimony to just how homogenous / under-considered the "flat" aesthetic has become. For crying out loud, flatUI is a kit for replicating this appearance! I love the flat look, but as soon as kits for replicating a look start to grow in popularity, it's time to move on.

When you use an overly simplistic visual style, don't be surprised when it turns out to be very easy to rip off.

Now the "no design skills required" slogan from their site makes perfect sense.

Nice color scheme. I just copied it to colourlovers.com. Now many can enjoy it.

The DMCA counter-notice has been submitted: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/6a33a213e04e7fc5e74ce3...

If these layervault dickholes really believed so strongly in this, they'd issue a DMCA against designmodo's webhost.

But then designmodo would absolutely be forced to defend itself and layervault would be liable in court.

DMCA is a bunch of bullshit.