Printable View
I've seen a site which is a blatant copy of a site 2advanced created last year, I'm not going to post the links here, unless people really want to see them. I don't like people who think they can get away with these tactics, but what I was wondering is if a designer/design company blatantly copies a site, changing minimal elements like colours and such, what really happens?
I'd just like to see the different views people here have. ;)
[Edited by gecko2 on 07-17-2002 at 04:44 AM]
Tho it isn't exactly illeagal to rip a site, of course it is wrong. There is no law that says copying ideas would be illegal (unless you get a patent, of course). So, using a navigation style somewhat similar to 2A is no crime.
On the other hand, there is a law that makes impossible for a work of art look/sound like another one already existing... is web page a work of art? According to current laws, I don't think so.
So it currently seems there's nothing illegal being a copycat... at least before you get sued. Court of law decides if the site is "similar enough".
For the moral side: Of course it is wrong, stupid and bad for the whole business. Both client and "designer" suffer and 2A gets pissed as well.
When you speak of 2A, it has somewhat became a "standard" of web pages... how about putting up the URL? :)
With US copyrite laws, websites are protected - anything on a fixed medium (including a harddrive or disk)
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device.
from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
So if something is 'stolen' from a site it can be pursued as an infringement - the copyright does not even have to be registered at the time of infringement though it must be registered before infringement violations can be pursued.
Personally I don't see whats so revolutionary about 2a that elements are not going to show up in other sites- Its a GREAT site and they do excellent work but overall its still a webpage with basic elements like graphics and links organized into a visually pleasing style. Some of the graphics are from stock libraries so its not as though they can't be seen again elsewhere-
but I think we still all know a 2a rip off when we see it- I don't see what the big deal is- there are always artistic movements and I doubt many untrained people could tell the difference between Rapheal and Michelangelo but most artists can. 2a has set the standard for that style of website and should expect that others will immitate that style-
I'm not talking about style, style can be many things in design. I mean hardcore copying here. I don't know how some people have the nerve, because eventually they get caught out. There's 2 screendumps here with the URL's below, wait for them to load, it'll be worth it. ;)
Original
http://www.geckorecords.co.uk/extras...eendump_01.jpg
http://www.highersourcemusic.com
Copy
http://www.geckorecords.co.uk/extras...eendump_02.jpg
http://www.faith-hull.com
[Edited by gecko2 on 07-16-2002 at 12:13 PM]
There was similar thread a while back about almost the same thing - a customer wanted the designer to make his site like one he'd seen, for no other reason than he liked it. Seems valid enough, especially as imitation is the most sincere form of flattery (yeah, right - see you in court, big fella).
There are a certain number of form cues, though, that must be followed by designers. As Neil Young once said about there only being a limited numer of chords around, eventually there'll be no original combinations of such, I'm sure that the same'll happen to sites.
How about this alternative scenario- shocking as it may seem, until today, this very post in fact, I had never heard of 2A (and I've been around the block more than once). Whatever. Anyway, suppose I'd run into the copycat site before seeing the 2A site? - who's the original then?
The bottom site was launched about 2 to 3 months ago, the top one was about a year and a half previous.
yeah its an obvious rip-off - its not even the layout as much as the little detail images that make it really bad
While I agree that the pinheads who rip designs are cheating everyone involved it is important to point ouut that the Higher Source site was designed by none other than 2Advanced themselves. How does that copyright infringement suit work??
As far as the Deja vu site by Focus Design, first, as stated above certain design elements and trends will undoubtedly develop from distinctive styles and it looks live 2A isn't the only design this dude's ripped off. Second, as long as he keeps making his intros take 3 times as long to load as his site, no one will bother seeing the site designs anyway!!
While the style is definitely 'ripped' from 2A (IMO), earlier posts by 2A's Tony Novak on the subject suggest, they are not too worried. I dont think I much blame them. No matter how good the ripped copy, the culprits never nail down the execution of a 2A authentic the same way.
I think they are more worried about sites like this:
http://www.chez.com/drcsss/
That use ACTUAL content from their site.
Read this for TPNovak's take on things..
or just wait around -
I'm sure his search of the forums will bring him here shortly.
-Chris
A simular discussion has been on flashdevils.com, and I think you must first discuss it with the guy who made the site. Okay, there are sites who are obvious rip-offs, but many sites are only inspirated by the originall one. Before you do things like contacting the provider of the copy-cat I think you really should discuss this with the copy-cat.
On many occasions the copy-cat is willing to make his site different or put him ofline.
I cant stand people who actually call themselves designers and blatantly steal other ' Real Designers ' hard work.
Once I saw a site that had been a blatant rip of another site, it even used the same images and section headings.
This really wound me up so I decided to write an email to the company that had ripped the site and complain that they were portraying themselves as a design company, when infact the hadn't even designed their own site!
I got an email back from the director and it turned out that on of his 'designers' had infact done it and he had no idea that it was a stolen design.
He thanked me for letting him know of his designers dodgy deeds, and said he felt a fool because he had been praising his designer for his stunning design.
He then told me that he had discussed it with the designer and then terminated his employment :)
Some have said that I am a bit evil for doing this, but I think he deserved it. If you have a job as a designer then you design.
Design - a person who imagines how something could be made and draws plans for it.
Imagines, not Steals.
Anyway, that was my little bit in the fight against those evil thieving gits.
Do you think I'm being a bit harsh??
Harsh? Definately not. The designer, in his own mind, must of thought that nobody would catch him out, as there are so many sites around. I think we should have a separate forum for exposing rippers, with guidelines similiar to the flashkit footer rules to what we, as designers can do about it. It's difficult as to exactly what can be done but something should definately be done about it, even if it is a case of contacting the parties involved. They may not be a problem between the copying, but there also may be a problem which may need highlighting. A big thumbs up to dazza for his contribution http://board.flashkit.com/board/imag...2001/10/77.gif
If anybody sees any more please enlighten us ;)
the real issue behind this is somthing i pointed out with macromedia, I was disappointed to see that someone had developed a decompiler for swf files which enables you to not only extract all the embedded graphics but rip out the coding - even if you save the fla file with a password - making a mockery out of the whole "protected movie" system.
Needless to say they never made much effort in the replies the sent with regard to sorting it out "we'll look into it" was the response as far as I can remember
I told them whats needed in future versions of flash is an encryption method with a developer "key" to extract/decompile built in, or some kind of paired system with the server, so that a movie will only run or be decompiled with an asp variable on the hosting server, making any re-use or deconstruction impossible.
this causes a wider problem because
a) if you do a job for someone the constructional .flas file is yours. This is only if you agree to supply only the "artwork" e.g. the .swf file on the understanding that the code is your intellectual property.
If someone else undercuts you, then they must rebuild it from scratch -code and all.
If your original agreement and thus a greater design fee - if you agree that all materials for a website design job become the property of the company you worked for, then the other company may use the code - its as simple as that.
b) it is a legal issue if someone has used this code ripping method, reconstructing a website (or artwork) when you have no access to the layered files (e.g. photoshop .psd) or in this case a fla file. is not a crime, even if it looks the same if you do it for the owner of the original website (company) as you are physically rebuilding it, this is where a patent would apply if you own "the idea" or application of it.
c) copying style is tricky legally... there is a certain amount of percentages of change that are allowed to artwork, designs or photos, which make them no longer "owned" by the original copyright holder (creator or company) - Perhaps someone more versed in legal content copyright can expand on this.
d) the coding will be fairly obvious to identify if it has been lifted - obviously if it has been rewritten with different variables and rems removed etc it would be difficult to prove -remember rewording textbook descriptions into your exam answers at school, or even copying a friends homework and slightly grammatically altering it.
tricky subject.
I suppose the real issue is - is it a business website or not, are they/the flash designer making a lot of money out of someone elses hard work - unless it was offered to the public domain (like a tutorial).
What to do...
A swift email to the website owners and design agency should buck their ideas up, and to the people who appear to have had their website "ripped off"
[Edited by derekcfoley on 07-17-2002 at 11:18 AM]
For those pro-active in reporting design rip-offs, here is a great link!
http://www.pirated-sites.com/
I'm not sure if it's coincidence, but both links (the rip- offs) are "temporarily down due to reconstuction."
Goal accomplished - I second the added discussion area to expose these hacks.
On http://www.faith-hull.com it appears that the website is down for maintenance. What is actually happening now is that they are now contemplating what to do after being sprung. Wonder if they have seen this thread?
The overall tone fo this thread sounds like a Salem lynching party! Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but you guys are salivating just a bit too much.
OK, so when has inspiration gone over the top and become copy cat? - Define the line for me. I saw the 2A rip-off and agree that's too much, but surely there's still a mid point where taking design cues is still allowed.
Or would that get the Flashkit hanging party on my back, too??
:)
If it were somewhat similiar but was un-noticable which site the copy was based on fair enough, because nobody would notice it would they? If it looks alike then it's wrong.
If it's a virtual replica like the example shown then they as designers have only themselves to blame for the downfall of the site.
I look at great sites all the time, mostly from members of FK, and if something looks good or I wonder how that designer achieved the effect I look at it, sometimes for a long time. Then in the future I may have a project which when going through ideas I may recall how an effect or process was applied to a site or graphic and I think how I could come up with an idea which isn't the same but equally as good.
Designers design, wannabe-designers copy.
we won't be lynching you hurricaneone, I appreciate your comments
we won't be lynching you hurricaneone, I appreciate your comments [/B][/QUOTE]
That's cool - I don't want to get on the wrong side of the mob! (but of course, if you give the mob what they want, they'll love you for it - inspired by Gladiator).
No, I agree with you completely. Anyway, why bother just claiming to be a designer (and copying other people's work) - isn't that what keeps the work of designing fresh and interesting? - coming up with new ideas?
It is for me.
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."Quote:
Originally posted by cyk
there are always artistic movements and I doubt many untrained people could tell the difference between Rapheal and Michelangelo but most artists can. 2a has set the standard for that style of website and should expect that others will immitate that style-
- Pablo Picasso
Let me pose a new angle on this topic, on the web site http://www.digitalblasphemy.com there is a 'users gallery' where people can post their own 3D wallpapers for their computers, that they designed. Now I really liked a few of these graphics and downloaded them and set 1 particular 1 as my desktop pic, now I really did like the look of this image (i think it was called geometrics) but I thought it could be improved upon so I tinkered with it in photoshop, added layers with different transparency, effects etc... until i felt the graphic was ideal and I really like it now and it is my desktop still, I even customised a new interface on my mac around the desktop.
But, the problem comes in when I think i could incorporate 'my' graphic into my new website which I am designing at the moment, where is the line between what was the original and what is my work, and when does that line get crossed? Should I acknowledge the work of the original designer, should I post a link to that person, or should I just say it's all my own work?
Using their wallpaper, even if you change it, is not allowed :eek: I am not sure you would want to do that (or make it public), as it may infringe on copyright laws.
[small]Quote:
from YOUR link: No image in any of my galleries, hi-res or thumbnail, may be used in any way other than as personal wallpaper. You may print them out for personal use but not for distribution (commercial or non-profit). You may not post them on public or private websites, whether they be not-for-profit or commercial. You may not distribute them on CD-ROM or other archival media like DVD-ROM, ZIP, floppy, or in compressed archives like zip, gz, or tar files. You may not alter them or use elements from them in your own work (unless that work is purely personal and will never be transferred to a computer other than the one on which it was created).
hi there,
i think there is no such think like copyright on internet.
hahahahahhaha...
people copy whole site or some graphic and say that its original.
but i think we r mixing to thinks here stealing and inspiration.
like i love the interface of http://www.celsiusdesign.com
and want to make one like it and with it i will but a link which will take u to celsiusdesign in inspiration section.
what u people think about it
coping/insipration/stealing
but there is one another thing i.e some guys 100% copy someones design and say that they r inspired by it thats y they copied it but u have to have something of your own.
in last i would like to say that coping is done every where
hollywood, on internet, on TV .
even God some times make duplicates ...............(twins)
hahahahahahaahhahaha
bye
adnan
inspire
1. To stimulate in to action; to motivate: The person was inspired to engage in new activities
2. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.
duplicate
1. An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate: a copy of a painting; made two copies of the letter.
2. One specimen or example of a printed text or picture: an autographed copy of a novel.
Why you would want to copy something, yet call it inspired (with a link :rolleyes: ) is beyond me. Now, I am all for trying to grasp's celcius' execution in order to develop your own style - but it sounds like you have other plans.
Why not do this. Ask yourself what you like about Celcius' design. Then ask... what do you not like. Perhaps this will open the door for ways in which you can branch off into your own identity. It is legitimately okay to be inspired.. but inspired to make copys? I dont believe in that.
Lets see what YOU can do.
hi there,
i think there is no such think like copyright on internet.
hahahahahhaha...
people copy whole site or some graphic and say that its original.
but i think we r mixing to thinks here stealing and inspiration.
like i love the interface of http://www.celsiusdesign.com
and want to make one like it and with it i will but a link which will take u to celsiusdesign in inspiration section.
what u people think about it
coping/insipration/stealing
but there is one another thing i.e some guys 100% copy someones design and say that they r inspired by it thats y they copied it but u have to have something of your own.
in last i would like to say that coping is done every where
hollywood, on internet, on TV .
even God some times make duplicates ...............(twins)
hahahahahahaahhahaha
bye
adnan
There is nothing divine about having twins. 'God' does not do anything to control it. Identical twins are simply formed when one sperm fertilizes an egg and then the egg splits in two. Fraternal twins are formed when two separate sperms fertilize two separate eggs. (but they are not identical, and such - not really relevant to the copying correlation).Quote:
Originally posted by adnank21
even God some times make duplicates ...............(twins)
While this may be the reality, this is completely false from a legal standpoint. I think that's what you were inferring?Quote:
Originally posted by adnank21
i think there is no such think like copyright on internet
That's not entirely accurate. Identical twins are not completely identical, especially when it comes to personality!Quote:
Originally posted by adnank21
even God some times make duplicates ...............(twins)