I'd like to know how good ol' Ray would feel if I bought a bunch of Falkner wines, changed the labels, and resold them for a few extra bucks per bottle. Maybe then he'd see some hoo-ha.

Well done.

Nice commentary and I agree for the most part. Just a note on your legal and intellectual property claims though... it is not possible to "own" a design and in America it is legal to parody design so long as actual "artwork" is not ripped off (such as illustrations, literature and photos, etc.)

Anybody who can right click > view page source can rip a design but it takes a real talent to take two great designs and make them into one mediocre one.

Thanks for the insight into your process; it’s good to know that I am not alone in my neuroses. By the time I am happy with the look I have usually whittled by hourly rate down to about $1.25 an hour, a half an hour later I hate it.

And to add insult to injury, they even receive two quality links to their new site. From here. Not too bad for a new site, that'll cost a few bucks elsewhere.

You know what, I think you're really overreacting. The only thing that is blatantly ripped off is the wine bottle - which is total bullshit. They should not have done that and it's' really low. But, color scheme? Other than similar colors the site does not really share anything with either site. It's a style found throughout the web. Obviously the "designer" if you want to call him that was heavily influenced by Dan's work, but come on guys, relax a bit. This happens all the time. The only really bad part here is the wine bottle - unless I'm missing something. If I am, break down exactly what they ripped off. Are there any similarities in the styesheets?

I love both Cork'd and Joyent and I hate to see them ripped off, but come on. This stuff happens every day. I would be right behind all of you if I could see more similarity, but it honestly just feels like the guy doing the site had cork'd in his head while making it. Designers do that all the time and it is usually flattering. How does Dan Cederholm feel about this? Has anyone asked him?

-Andrew

They use mint to track their stats,

Cameron? Did they buy mint our pirate that too?

Great post. I agree with your perspectives on rips completely and definitely hate to see people doing this.

As it relates to Faulkner Winery specifically, I think that Dan and Dan from Cork'd have more to complain about than Joyent. Don't get me wrong -- this is obviously a case of the designer taking Joyent's design, changing some things, and rolling it out. But where is the (legal) line at which you've changed "enough" things that is becomes no longer a ripoff and instead "influenced by" the prior art? It's blurry, to say the least. I think this site -- at it relates to Joyent -- walks the line. I find it lame and annoying that the designer clearly started from Joyent's work, but I'm not quite sure I can say the final version is a trademark/copyright violation. I doubt customers would be about to confuse the two, and it appears as though the designer did hand-make each image (i.e. they both have drop shadows, but the drop shadows aren't the same. They share a layout, but the typography and details are different -- etc.). So, while I can certainly understand Joyent's annoyance, I'm not convinced they would, say, win a court case over this.

Cork'd, on the other hand, has obviously be thieved directly. There's absolutely no question that the wine bottle on is simply the Cork'd bottle, rotated bit, with a new label and a drop shadow. I notce they've since gone in and removed some of the bottle's details to try to make it more different from the original -- but you can still see from Dan Benjamin's screenshot that this wasn't always this way.

It's really unfortunate when this happens. I wish we designers had a better recourse. As I said, I'm doubtful that Joyent would win a case if they took this to court. So, even if we could afford the legal battle -- what good would it do?

Ray Faulkner could claim ignorance this morning -- he can't anymore. The fact that they changed the bottles and deleted all the blog comments on the topic is a clear sign that he knows what was done was wrong and he'd rather ignore it and cover it up than own up to it like a man and have it changed.

So while it's debatable that this site is a violation of trademark/copyright in the legal sense, it's not debatable at all that Ray Faulkner and his web designer are total scabs. They know they've stolen work and simply don't care -- for that, they deserve no less than continued humiliation and embarrassment over the matter.

Related: Why is it that these thieves are not only asshats, but also idiots? Earlier this week, we at LJWorld.com discovered a ripoff of our site -- by another small town newspaper. LJWorld's design has been online for nearly four years and has won tons of awards in the journalism industry. So, rather than ripping off something obscure, they chose to rip off something well-known, highly-respected and in the same industry as themselves -- how did they ever expect to get away with this? It's the same situation here -- rather than finding some obscure but nice site to rip off, Faulkner has chosen to rip off a very popular and very well-known site that deals with wine. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

> I love both Cork'd and Joyent and I hate to see them ripped off, but come on. This stuff happens every day.

Murders happen every day, too.

@Andrew - "but it honestly just feels like the guy doing the site had cork'd in his head while making it. Designers do that all the time and it is usually flattering."

Wow. I can't say I've ever been flattered by somebody taking my work and reselling it as their own. You really can't see the similarity between Falkner, and Joyent's design?

I don't condone design ripoffs like this for the reasons mentioned above - it's stealing someone else's hard-won work - but also because it seems like part of a poorly thought-out brand strategy. If your wines are original and award-winning, they deserve an original site that reflects the history of the company, the personality of its founders, and the uniqueness of the products.

But having dealt with a lot of businesspeople who either don't understand that, or don't want to spend the money, or whatever, I can understand why they'd go with a copy-and-paste solution, probably because it looked really good and came at a discount price. There's always a catch, folks...

Ok after seeingi their website and cleaning the vomit off my keyboard I have decided the MUST have ripped those sites off. You guys are right, the Joyent side by side comparison is damning.

Maybe if they had a decent website I could convince myself they hadn't ripped it off, but it's quite clear they aren't skilled designers.

I don't think that looking at a stylesheet and copying a few methods (say a navigation) is too bad. In fact, that's how I learned - by picking apart HicksDesign and BaseCamp. I certainly never ripped off code, but I reverse engineered a few things for sure.

> I don't think that looking at a stylesheet and copying a few methods (say a navigation) is too bad. In fact, that's how I learned - by picking apart HicksDesign and BaseCamp. I certainly never ripped off code, but I reverse engineered a few things for sure

This is not about code. It's about design. Who cares if they stole the code? It's the design that is the intellectual property in question. It would have been just as bad if they'd stolen the design and put it in print. Code is irrelevant here.

Greg's tongue-in-cheek comment about being an "ambulance chaser" shouldn't be misunderstood.

I think it's important to get in touch with these people and offer them the services from the web design/dev community that "gets it", that doesn't rip people off and is just plain more honest.

It's called outreach and when we see someone getting steamrolled by a hack designer the least we can do is reach out and offer an alternative to the crap they paid for.

@Ryan - I agree that the services of designers could be offered in a friendly manner to assist this person, however Greg did try to reach out and the guy wasn't at all interested.

I'm sure other people have tried to contact him as well, quite possibly through the comments on the site which now require moderation before appearing, which i'm sure will not be displayed.

One can only be helped if they allow it. Otherwise it's just being pushy, and maybe he does need a push or a kick in the ass.

Nice writeup, Greg.

It's unfortunate that design theft happens so often, that my reaction to it has softened over time. Today, I'd been mostly chuckling at the developments: comments being deleted from the Falkner blog, getting no response to a polite email I wrote to Falkner Winery, then seeing the gradients removed from the stolen bottle graphics as apparent evidence of innocence. The chuckling stopped when I read about Ray's opinion of the situation here.

After seeing their modifications to the graphics happen without a response, it became clear that, as one commenter pointed out, they felt they did no wrong. That's now confirmed by Greg's enlightening conversation with our pal Ray.

I've taken flack in the past for publicly outing what I thought to be design theft, so these days I take a more direct approach: sending a note and leaving a comment. 99% of the time that takes care of things. The guilty party often blames it on a contractor that they didn't know well, and the site is taken down or fixed. I'm surprised to find out that in this case, they either knew full well they were stealing, or as Greg says, they just don't care.

Someone asked earlier what I thought about all of this: well, I think it sucks ass. Falkner lifted some graphics that I spent a lot of time thinking about and creating. This isn't about some grey area of inspiration. This is about physically copying an image, slapping your logo on it and using it prominently thoughout your site. And then being arrogant enough to say there's nothing wrong with it.

It's a bummer we've ended up focusing so much attention on Falkner specifically -- they certianly don't deserve it. And I'll assume that if the owner of the winery sees no wrong doing here, that their wine probably suffers from the same level of obtuseness: notes of disappointment with just a hint of subtle asshat-y-ness. Zero stars.

what say we all find a struggling little winery that has great products but needs a good site and come up with something excellent and original - show 'em how it's done and redress the karmic imbalance?

While I agree with the idea that code and design THEFT is wrong, I don't see how it applies in this case. Falkner Winery's HTML is structured entirely differently from either Cork'ds or Joyent's. There may be some visual similarities (colors, stripes, etc) but this was definitely not a copy-and-paste job like you seem to be implying. If it were a true copy-and-paste job, Falkner Winery's website would have inherited the same bugs Joyent displays on their site (sure, it looks great in FireFox for windows, but is broken in IE6 and FireFox for Linux).

Sure, the web designer may have looked at Joyent's page (presumably the non-broken version) and said "boy, that's a nice looking website, I like what they did with the nav bar stripe", but he didn't blatantly steal the code and repackage it as his own like the author of this post seems to be insinuating. He just thought certain visual elements were aesthetically pleasing and incorporated them into his own repertoire of design techniques. There's a big difference between theft and inspiration, and in this case I think you should be flattered that he found your design techniques worthy of emulating - it means you're doing something right. Every artist and designer since the dawn of art has done the same thing - you see something you like, and you build on it, expand it, and make it your own. Remember Picasso's famous line, and think about how well it worked for him.

> I think all 3 sites suck. Don't see any great design elements in any of them.

So it's okay to steal designs, as long as you think those designs suck?

> Maybe some borrow more than others, and yes - at some point it becomes wrong... but I couldn't define where that is?

No doubt it's a tough line to define, and i don't think anyone here would say that they haven't been influenced by others. But when you copy a distinctive illustration of a wine bottle, change the text on the label, and add a drop shadow to it, you've crossed the line -- period.

Surely you wouldn't argue with that, would you?

As designers I think we are all very aware of the websites that are around us. We look much more closely at the websites we admire. So when a website, such as Falkner Winery uses elements from Corkd and Joyent it is very obvious to us, it clicks in our heads where those elements came from instantly.

Would this be as obvious to a average users?

I think it's blatantly obvious that Falkner Winery stole imagery, colors, layout elements, etc. from Corkd and Joyent. Would my parents see it quite so clearly? Would my girlfriend? Maybe. And if they do, the line has certainly been crossed. Is the line crossed now? I certainly think so - but I am very biased because I admire the design at Corkd and have looked at it dozens of times...

It could be like Pierre Menard. Hmm.

I think the thing Im more bothered about is the fact that you seek to profit off of it.

In my email I suggested the Faulkner contact their existing web company and get them to redo the work and if they refused that Airbag could be made available to help. I assumed there wouldn't be a lot of money to hire a new, separate design company after the winery had just paid for a brand spanking new site. That said, having a wine label for a client would have been worth any sacrifice we would have made to help the client reverse the situation.

Any designer who claims they are not influenced by design around them (web or otherwise) is lying. We are all influenced by what we see, and what is around us.

The difference is influence vs. borrow or "to have an effect on character" vs. "to take and use". We are all (artists, designers, writers, musicians, developers) influenced by what has come before, there is no denying that, but I clearly see the difference between being influenced and borrowing.

Why don't you take him to Small Claims Court?

My understanding is that it an take up to three years before a case is heard before a judge but maybe that's just here in California.

I don't think that's true at all (the three year wait.) I filed a small claims case in San Francisco back around... um, 1999 or so. Unless the small-claims situation has seriously degraded since then, I think you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised at how quickly justice moves along in the court system.

From filing to completion, my case was probably... oh, 6 months, but that was only because of a failure to show by the defendant on two different occasions. (Normally, this would've resulted in a default finding for me, but there were extenuating circumstances both times.)

And don't forget, the case can legitimately be filed in any one of several jurisdictions. Basically, it must be filed 'where the offence occurred' which is open to interpretation by the judge: is it in the county where F. Winery is located? Or where their design work was done? Or where the offended parties are located? Or where Cork'd is hosted? Or where their business address is? You could probably make a reasonable case for any of these.

I feel like a litigous jerk saying this, but the more distance you can put between the defendant and the court venue, the greater the odds that they'll settle beforehand or yield to arbitration. (Which is really the desired goal here, right? To get them to redact the offending elements, esp. the artwork which seems a complete rip.)

Nice job, Greg, this kind of thing needs direct attention. Kudos for going straight to the source.

Now I'd just love to see any Falkner wines listed on Cork'd get some sort of negative marking -- perhaps remove them altogether and block their addition? I can see it now: Someone attempts to add a Falkner wine to their Cork'd cellar, and the following message appears:

"We're sorry, the wine you are trying to add has been deemed unsafe due to the recent discovery of a bottle containing bacteria that can cause explosive diarrhea or even death. That, and the nice folks at the Falkner Winery are asshats."

Nice write up Greg. I've had discussions with clients many times in the past with the ever terrible "We love ABC site. Can ours look just like it?". I've bookmarked this for future reference and I may indeed "borrow" parts of it whenever I need to diffuse that request.

To the people that don't see this as theft, I feel bad for you. You are obviously fooling yourselves in your daily design work. Hopefully no one sues you at some point for your over similar inspired web site.

Great post. So many people don't appreciate the blood and sweat that goes into a great design. Granted, designers have to take inspiration from others for design as a whole to evolve, however blatantly ripping off a design is wrong.

I borrow design ideas from other designers all the time but there is a limit, borrowing ideas and borrowing a complete site design are two very different things.

I've been waiting to comment until I had read more comments, most specifically from Cederholm. I'm actually a bit sad over this, more than mad. I get similar responses from people in regard to stealing an article and republishing it on a blog. People genuinely seem to believe it's okay (again, even moreso when the article "sucks"). They even change a few words here and there and call it "inspired".

It seems to me the issue has more to do with the heart of the person doing wrong and when someone lacks that heart (or conscience), there's not much recourse. Publicly outing them may seem to some as "overreacting" or childish, but in some cases, when you've tried to be gallant about it, your best option is to appeal to some other controlling factor in their lives, like their wallet and pride in this case.

Fighting fire with fire does stink, but when you've been attacked by someone who can only be warded off by fire, what choice to you have really?

Back to the heart, I'm sad because of all the comments in defense of the winery. There's a definite problem with the heart of these people who believe there's no (or little) wrong-doing. When you compare the other work by this design company, it's pretty obvious this isn't something they created from scratch. It's my belief that the people who defend "inspired" theft are the same people who would do it themselves if they felt they needed to. I'm sad to share the internet with people of this character, no matter how common it is.

One last note about code vs design - it's not really about code in this case at all. The comment about the HTML or CSS being structured differently is completely irrelevant. I imagine this is a thought among thieves, though, that you can change the structure of your code and it's no longer a rip off. You probably think recreating it from scratch makes it somehow unique. In this case it's about graphics which were very obviously copied and manipulated to look slightly different (and then more different when caught).

Just as Natalie, I'm sad. The difference between inspiration and ripping off is that in the first only some general elements or ideas are taken from the original, wereas in the second specific elements are literally copied. If you look at the two sites, the size and spacing of the different "blocks" and shadows are pixelperfectly copied. You can lay one design over the other and you'll see the exact match.

I tried to leave the following comment on Falkner's blog: "Too bad you stole your website design from Joyent. Better ethics, er ... luck next time." Not surprisingly, the moderator (I presume Ray Falkner) didn't approve my comment.

It's the very nature of the Web. You so-called intellectual property is not protected, nor it should be.

Buddy, I've been on the net since 1991 and taking someone else's work has NEVER been the nature of the web. And it's not "so-called" intellectual property it IS intellectual property that IS protected by US and International laws. Francis you're exactly the kind of person the web doesn't need more of.

I tried to leave the following comment on Falkner's blog...Not surprisingly, the moderator (I presume Ray Falkner) didn't approve my comment.

Ray is heavily moderating all comments. He deleted a lot of comments yesterday and only left those that said how nice his new website was.

They're not particularly similar at all other than color schemes. Is no one allowed to use tan anymore?

Brian, if you can't see the infraction then you have no business calling yourself a web designer.

I think the "intellectual property theft is the nature of the web" comment is pretty spot on — not [ethically] right, but accurate. Anyone remember Napster? Kazaa? Always amuses me when designers get bent about design appropriation but they steal music, fonts, software, etc.

Another interesting thing about this is that the person who created the Falkner Winery site seems to care about web standards and clean code, and does seem to be a good designer. If I didn't know the look and feel were *heavily* influenced by the Joyent design, and that the wine bottle icon was directly stolen, I'd be impressed by the design and the code. And it's really not trivial to steal but re-design and re-code and still have it look as good as this.

I think the only person that would have any basis would be Dan Cederholm. Unfortuantely for us graphic designers, under the law, it's merely impolite to copy another design to this degree. As far as what is protected by copyright: code - yes; typeface - yes; illustration - yes; photography - yes; the design that pulls it all together: no.

I think the only person that would have any basis would be Dan Cederholm.

Lets not forget Cameron Moll who designed the Joyent website.

Yes it's quite clear that the same background images and CSS were used for the background, wine bottle graphics, etc.

Has anybody bothered inquiring if any or all of the imagery used on the Falkner Wines website is licensed? It looks like to me most of the imagery is either from Veer, iStockphoto or Photos.com. Just a good question to ask.

A designer who worked for my company before I came on board used an unlicensed image from Getty ( a web comp ) and left it on the website ( happened to be a hospital ). Needless to say, we received a $1,000.00 copyright infringment bill from Getty for using this image. Ouch.

Sucked at the time, but everyone is quite careful about only using licensed images on our web design.

Thoughts? You may not be able to do much in the way of taking this guy to CSS Court, but I know that there are Veer Vigilantes who would enjoy making sure each of those images had been paid for.

Ben

Of course it's a rip-off. Laughably so.

What I wonder is, are some (or all) of these defenders either Falkner people or Falkner's web "designer"? I just find it hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant as to argue Falkner's side as an impartial bystander.

Tom D said, "Always amuses me when designers get bent about design appropriation but they steal music, fonts, software, etc."

I think most legitimate designers, as creative professionals themselves, do respect copyright for all other creatives as well and in fact, it's part of their training and education in becoming a designer. I highly doubt that a hack who steals a font would be bothered about someone stealing a designer's hard work. On the contrary, they would be here, defending the whinery, oops, I meant winery.

Natalie — agreed, maybe. I just think people, all people, often rationalize. I'm sure this web-designer and whinery owner just think as lightly about borrowing HTML and JPGs as most designers think about pirating fonts or poaching images from Google image search. I'm a big champion of respecting intellectual property; I wish I could share your opinion that most [legitmate] designers respect copyright for other creatives. My experience over 15+ years of being a working professional is this unfortunately isn't the case. My motive here is simply to encourage all the outraged here to think twice next time they choose to use a bootlegged copy of CS2 or give a font for free to a friend. We've no legitimacy to be upset about the example above if we don't keep our own IP houses in order.

Obviously the design elements are copied. What is so sad is that Joyent's design works well for its market but is not really appropriate for this site. And Cork'd only works because of its novelty. It's a gimmick design and a general poor choice of material for this market. Neither site depicts the elegance or romance of wine. That's what vintners are really selling, an experience, an emotion.

There are so few truly original sites around that, for any site, you could probably find another that looks like it, whether consciously copied or not. What bothers me is the poor choice of role models. If the designer was going to copy a design there are much more appropirate ones to rip off.

From the owner's point of view, I'd just ignore or delete all comments about the design, too. If he's happy with the design and it's not illegal, then negative comments are just an annoyance. Lack of creativity is not a crime. If it were every designer would be in trouble at one time or another. We all copy, if not quite so blatantly. Your upset is not reason enough to spend the money for a re-design.

'Lack of creativity' is quite a euphemism for unauthorized use of copyrighted material — which is quite often illegal. Just try to design a logo that due to 'lack of creativity' looks like Mickey Mouse and see how far you get with it.

I don't know a designer anywhere who hasn't got 10k fonts on their machine and almost all of them stolen from old jobs, traded, etc. Those fonts aren't free and neither is that copy of photoshop with the cracked serial number. Every design firm I've ever been to has some apps that are in a perpetual state of evaluation.

I also remember downloading the gray album and think how great it was but I knew it was full of stolen music from the Beatles. Was it lacking in creativity? I don't remember anyone raising a fuss about theft then. And if you think that different because the gray album is new and derivative, that's just BS because there is no way to say how much you can change before it's legally considered derivative.

I can imagine the RIAA would get a kick out of this whole thread.
Stealing is lame, unless it's not.

Why do we designers even copyright our work and fill out the paperwork and find the appropriate Creative Commons license if we do nothing about it?

I think a better way for us small guys to enforce creative copyright and license is to create a type of creative union that announces plagirism when these things happen. I think it would be cool to create a site that teaches designers how to pick up the damn phone or send an email to a designer. If they don't do this we can blitz the client.

Quick story. I needed to make a site for a small clothing boutique. I really liked the icon work someone drew and posted either on Iconfactory or some other icon site.

I emailed the designer asking if the icon could be reused, was it royalty-free? He replied. We IM'd... I told him about the project. They guy even sent me an EPS file so I could change the color as long as I thanked him on the site. It's common courtesy. I ended up buying him something on his Amazon wishlist. It was cool.

I remember back in the day when Travis of Squidfingers was releasing code snippets and patterns. I would shoot him a link of times I used his stuff. Why can't designers thank people? Talk to other designers. I have never had a bad experience talking to a fellow designer. You make friends, everyone is comfortable, It's a win-win (or if you are an Office fan a win-win-win).

Every version of my site has had a colophon or a dedicated section of my site to thank people for fonts, graphics, photoshop brushes, whatever it may be. I wish more designers would do this.

> Dangermouse rips off the Beatles and Jay-Z, beautifully.

Dangermouse didn't try to claim the work was his own, either. He mashed-up two sources and gave full credit to the original artists for their part. It wasn't legal -- but it also wasn't immoral. Also, didn't Dangermouse stop distributing the album when the Beatles asked him to?

Ray Faulkner and his web designers are claiming this work is their own. They've given no credit to the original artists. And, when informed that they were infringing and asked to stop, they simply didn't care.

Not the same thing at all.

Thought I'd chime in here being the designer behind Joyent's site. Much like Dan C., I tend to not draw attention to these kinds of things publicly, but Greg seems to have done so appropriately here. So they were a bit too "inspired" by my layout. Fine. Forget the fact that I did 13 revisions over the course of more than 3 weeks to get to that point. But lifting the same artwork from Corkd and calling it your own? It's terribly difficult to deny that's crossing the line.

It's the organising that comes after the moralising that you have to watch out for. But of course, that is what the law is for. However difficult it might be to obtain at times.

I read through quite a few posts, but when I got to Bichufo's, I just had to post a great point. Also, I'll try not to reiterate all of the great points made by so many posters as to why this was closer to theft than inspiration.

Bichufo, you asked:

"So if you drive by a house and you like the color you can't buy the same color paint and paint yours?"

Well, maybe; if the person bought it from the store, off of the shelf, then the answer is yes. You could paint your house that color.

However, if the home owner had that paint designed and or mixed specifically for them, then yes. The same could be said for a floorplan, outer appearance of the home or other aspects, especially if they fall under the umbrella of art.

More specifically, it applies to the usage in the same industry so as to confuse potential clients or customers. There's a link at the bottom that discusses this.

Just think UPS Brown, Tiffany Blue, and Caterpillar Yellow which is both trademarked and patented, I believe.

The link:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/25/cadbury_trademarks_t.html

Lastly; sure, there is a difference between inspiration and theft, but I think most everyone here can agree that this one leans a little to much to the worse of those two.

Worth looking at the About Us page on the Falkner Web Site

Ray Falkner spent his career in technology with companies such as IBM and Microsoft.

Jeff Croft wrote:

"This is not about code. It's about design. Who cares if they stole the code? It's the design that is the intellectual property in question. It would have been just as bad if they'd stolen the design and put it in print. Code is irrelevant here."

Um, developers care. I'd have a lot more sympathy for your position if you hadn't just shown that you don't care if it isn't your stuff that is being swiped. Yes, I know you said it isn't relevant here but it is relevant if you want to be consistent.

"So if you drive by a house and you like the color you can't buy the same color paint and paint yours? "

I think you could take that way further. What if I like the design of a nearby house and I build one just like it. So what. Am I a thief? Does every house have to be totally new from the ground up? Each one a inspired creation as unique as a snowflake? Gimme a break.

I'm sure this wine guy is happy with his new house and doesn't give a crap that it looks like one down the street.

And by the way to think for a minute that Danger mouse is totally innocent in the gray album creation is BS. He stepped all over the Beatles for his own gain. It was rude but I loved the album and I am still glad he did it.

I am a little late to this thread, but have been following this fiasco through other readings. I first saw the falkner winery site in one of the CSS 'featured' sites. Instanly when I saw the design I though 'Corkd' I didn't initially make the connection with Joyent until I put them side to side.

The issue to me is the fact that they DENY stealing the designs. Natalie brings some great things when comparing their site and its markup (Tables, image resizing, etc), as well as Nathan Smith pointing out dropping the design into DW but not changing the things that matter.

Their site is a structural mess - and a mess that only re-inforces the fact that they have lifted design elements (as if changing the images wasn't enough proof).

Overall - aside from dis-respecting the great designers behind joyent.com and corkd.com - they have shown their true ignorance.

So, as Jeff Croft said eariler - how do you really combat something like this? Where are the lines that are drawn?

I have found the company responsible for the Corkd/Joyent rp off: Third & Grand

Check my blog for more info.

It's fab isn't it, Steve. And very instructive. I'm not going to read through everything again, but I'm sure I remember reading someone mentioning here - if not elsewhere - about forming an organisation of some sort to allow individuals and smaller firms easier legal redress when this sort of thing occurs. Not entirely outside the realms of reason perhaps. For a different take on a different issue in a different industry but with a not completely dissimilar principle in mind check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. It could start right here.

> Um, developers care. I'd have a lot more sympathy for your position if you hadn't just shown that you don't care if it isn't your stuff that is being swiped.

That's not what I meant and you know it. I meant that it was irrelevant in this situation, because they didn't steal code, only design. Obviously, I meant to say, "who cares if they didn't steal the code." Sorry for the typo. Lighten up, buddy.

Well, it should come as no surprise that the company that Ryan uncovered that ripped the Corkd design doesn't just "appropriate" HTML and site layouts. You can add appropriation of icons as well.

After a visit to the site Ryan found, I spotted one of our own World of Aqua icons in use in their site design, despite the fact that our terms of use specifically state that such use is not permitted.

A cease and desist letter has been sent to Third & Grand to get our work removed from their site. All of this is quite ironic considering the marketing speak on their FAQ page:

"We have years of experience and we know what works and what doesn't. We design every website from scratch and never ever use templates. You deserve better than that."

Uuuhuh. Riiiight.

We've received a response from Third & Grand and they apologize for using our icon in their website and have agreed to remove it. Kudos to them for doing the right thing in this matter.

I have seen various posts that pose such an irrational ideology that it makes me detest that I claim to come from the same planet, let alone the same expertise or field as a "web designer" with said people. These people have spouted off (anonymously) that "it's okay to steal designs, because, hey, everyone steals fonts and programs, exc."

Please, for the love. It's apparent that some here have no concept as to what the US Copyright act says. Maybe you should read Copyright Infringement while you're at it.

Do I think its an infringement, you bet. Is it worth fighting in court, or a settlement? Probably not.

I think its still valuable to talk about and bring into the open. I am sure that the owner of said wine has heard about cork'd with the buzz its been getting, and so shake a little cork'd, with a pinch of Joyent and whalah! Its called a derivative work, and its illegal to produce without the consent of the original artist(s).

For those of you who claim this isn't "exactly" the same, please read up on what a derivative work is, and how these works are contingent on rights given to the original copyright holder.

How do we know Third & Grand is the web design firm who was contracted to design Falkner Winery?

http://www.ryanmerket.com/

Ryan found it. Read the comments above.

Chris, I've been following this comment thread since the beginning and honestly found out about the 9rules affiliation about 45 minutes ago (12:15am my time). As a designer I *absolutely do not stand* for design rips (some examples of my wrath) and I'm currently writing an email to Sean Alsobrooks (Third and Grand) about the situation. Trust me, I am the wrong person to piss off. I'll let you guys know what happens.

@Paul - I had actually gone and done that same test, trying to find matching colors from both Joyent's and Falkner's site. I was just getting ready to post about it when I went back and saw your comment. In addition, I would just like to say that I didn't realize #DED5B3 and #E3DBBE were such common colors, did you?

Mike, have you heard back from Sean, and did he have anything to say in defense of the work? I'm guessing not (the rip is quite obvious), but I would like to hear his take on it all.

Mike;

Good. On. You.

Jeffrey W.B.;

Yes, Iconfactory may produce icons of copyrighted material, but copyright law doesn't prevent them from doing so due to the manner in which they operate.

First - and I'm not saying one way or the other because I do not know - how is it that you automatically assume that Iconfactory doesn't have permission of some kind? We know that Third & Grand didn't have permission because the designer of the sites has declared as much.

Second - assuming that Iconfactory doesn't have direct or implied permission, the icons you reference are freeware. No profit is gained, and apparently the copyright holders aren't breaking down Iconfactory's doors. In our case, however, one individual made money off of another's work. No credit was provided, no permission gained, and no royalty or remittance issued.

Third - The industries being operated in are seperate for Iconfactory, and combined with the previous two points and likely a few more I'm forgetting due to lack of sleep, really help to protect them. Again, none of the copyright holders of their icon material seem to be upset.

However, Third & Grand used a website design to create a website design; more importantly, they referenced a wine related site, regardless of good or bad design, to create another wine related site. For most people here, that's the salt on the wound.

Had they, say, created a model of the vector art in real glass with a real paper label, or a stain-glass recreation, or used the colors and layout from the website to inspire rather than copy a print design for a coffee table book of photos, it might have been a little different.

That's not what happened, and that's why people are expressing "mutual admiration".

And finally, we're not talking about two 'houses' that were standing or built simultaneously. One existed, Third & Grand liked it, and they took it for their own use with little concern of the ethical implications.

'Victorian' architecture describes a genre; we're not saying that Third & Grand stole the concept of a clean layout. We're saying that they walked into the Victorian house down the street, loved the wallpaper and moulding that was custom ordered, got swatches of both, and then recreated it for their own home.

@Mike

Good call!

Thanks for removing them from 9rules.

This is ridiculous.

In your diatribe about what a "real" designer does, Greg, you failed to mention that they apparently are also responsible for acting like some kind of intellectual property vigilante.

I don't get it. Did you design Joyent or Corkd? If not, then what the hell business is it of yours?

I can see strong similarities between Joyent and the winery site, but it's a reach times ten to call it a rip. The placement of the logo and a faded white section within the main column are the only true similarities. The navigation is completely different, the positioning of everything...

And... y'know... I'm not 100%, but I'd be willing to bet that the cork'd wine bottle is a piece of clip art.

If I were Sean Alsobrooks, i would actually bring a lawsuit against *you* for defamation.

You're always going off about this stuff, and every single time (even when I agree that the work is a rip) I can't believe how unprofessional you are. What are you, fifteen and want to be the center of some kind of drama?

I mean... c'mon, pal. On your About Page, you talk about the 10 Miles To Disneyland logo as being "designed" by you when it's nothing more than the California state flag. Wha?

(darn, forgot to close the tag, can you fix that please, Greg?)

Greg, I would call this journalism; awesome job!

Dan and Cameron, I'm sorry that this "design" firm ripped off your intellectual property. That's what has been done, no questions, no comments - it was a rip - period (or full stop, if you so incline). The love relationship you formed with a piece of art, as any designer knows, was cheaply prostituted. This is the real atrocity - you spent heart, soul, countless hours of loving/hating each and every element only to have someone blatantly (or not-so-blatantly as some of you defenders would suggest) take it, slap their name on it, and wear the badge of proud designer. It's wrong. It's as Natalie said, it's about their heart.

My plea for the web is that action should be taken. Maybe not legal action (we all know that would be a headache almost not worth the rewards), and maybe not here and now. Designs are ripped far too often in this industry because it's so easy to do. It's sickening. It's demoralizing. Can we not gather together, collate if you will, and put a stop to this? Is there no way to form a group, of designers and/or lawyers who are passionate about this, willing to spend the time needed to put and end to it? There has to be some affirmative action put in place...maybe an RIAA for the web? Am I pulling at straws here?

"maybe an RIAA for the web"

We don't need that. We have Greg Story: IP Superhero!

Thomas, unless you read the contract between Cameron and Joyent, you can't know that for sure. Many designers and clients hold joint rights over designs, depending on the job, the client, the designer, and other factors. But you're right, it's up to Cameron and/or Joyent to deal with any legal issues. As for what's going on here, anyone can blog about the issue or make a phone call. No one here is making a legal claim (even Cameron) - we're just talking about it.

that interview karim found is da cracker:

To carry off of that, your 6th reason of your "7 reasons you shouldn't hire us", describes clients that want to fit into their industry with a cookie cutter website. How do you deal with clients like that?

Ha ha. That is a funny question because it occurs so often. Clients usually go out and find their competition's website and say, "do this!" We can usually get the feel of a client up front, and the ones we are able to educate/show the light to, we go ahead and produce something amazing for them. For those clients who insist upon doing it just like their competition, we usually refer them out to our competition!

It's nice to hear that your firm has the cojones to show them the door when needed.

Well, to be fair, it is not the easiest thing to do, but sometimes it just has to be done. We try to identify "problem" clients up front and say "goodbye" as soon as possible.

ouch :(

> For a different take on a different issue in a different industry but with a not completely dissimilar principle in mind check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

>Interesting idea. AIGA?

I'm not sure but I believe that the Graphic Artists Guild operates in much the same way as CBLDF when it comes to dispute resolution.

> I don't get it. Did you design Joyent or Corkd? If not, then what the hell business is it of yours?

You're right Andy you don't get it. Dan and Cameron are my friends. I know what they went through to create their work and I'd happily wage war against anyone who tries to resell the work of my friends.

> I'd be willing to bet that the cork'd wine bottle is a piece of clip art

You would be wrong.

> If I were Sean Alsobrooks, i would actually bring a lawsuit against *you* for defamation.

Really? Is that your professional legal opinion?

> I can't believe how unprofessional you are.

I can't believe what a moron you are. Goodbye.

I agree with Ray ... you take yourself too seriously.

To his credit Sean owned up to his mistakes on his blog:

http://www.thirdandgrand.com/blog/2006/10/01/my-side/

Bottom line, most [people who call themselves] designers are hacks — always has been that way, always will be that way. They're not interested in advancing the medium or doing innovative work, they're interested in getting done sooner, and thinking less hard. They're just craftsmen, usually poor ones, cranking out crap. 'Tis the say it's sadly always been. Raise the bar on yourselves people. Sean what's-his-name — is a hack. Period. The really sad part is most clients don't want thinking design. They might think they do but they don't — they want an art service that they can order around. The good news is there's never a shortage of hacks willing to crank it out for them. These types of clients and these types of 'designers' deserve each other. Enjoy.

J David's comment was just like mine. Designers need to speak with one another. Why don't designers call or email other designers and get opinions, suggestions?

I kind of feel bad for this guy now. Everything he does will be scrutinized. I think I'd have to start a new design company and change my name. Like Sean Otherbrooks or Sean Not-that-brooks.

> The really sad part is most clients don't want thinking design. They might think they do but they don't - they want an art service that they can order around.

Ding! There are some days that going back to the old paper route sounds like better work. *sigh*

> Why don't designers call or email other designers and get opinions, suggestions?

I don't get that part either Jim. I speak to other designers all the time to get their input (even with blog posts like this one) and I have yet to come across any of them who aren't willing to offer some feedback and advice.

My thoughts exactly, why do people hide behind religion. leave religion out of it. Stand on your own two feet.

To the people who can't see the theft — I understand, but you should frankly just stay out of the debate, as you're just testifying to your own ignorance. It's as if wine growers were debating certain varietals, and you're just piping up and saying, "I tasted 'em all — they all seem the same to me [because I'm used to drinking Thunderbird]." If your palette is so unsophisticated as to not plainly see the problem, you should just take a pass on trying to discuss it. If you call yourselves designers, and don't see the issue, then you're calling yourself something you're not. Try saying, "I run Photoshop and Dreamweaver for money," the next time someone asks you what you do.

My main deal is -- why is the community so exactingly harsh on this guy?

This situation scares me as a young Web developer. I know I have a long way to go before I'd be considered anywhere near in a class with Greg &co. But if I make a misstep, it seems I'd be cast out in spades. I'm not saying I'd ever steal anybody's work (clearly I wouldn't and that'd go against anything I would stand for to be a professional) but if influence showed through in the final product, would I be subjected to this kind of attck?

The Internet may help to break down some barriers, but it's very intimidating to try to actually talk design with some of the bigger names and influences in the industry.

Xavier;

My post was long, so I suppose that had something to do with it not making as much sense as it could have.

That post is my take on a potential and fictional conversation between Sean A. of Third & Grand and Jason H. of Joyent.

It is my belief that, had Sean communicated with Joyent or Cork'd, most of this would likely have never occurred. We wouldn't be discussing it, etc.; A very similar point was made by Jim Renaud.

Basically, had he consulted those who ran the site he was -heavily- inspired by; worked with them it is very likely that more success than frustration would have come from this whole ordeal.

Like I said; it's very possible that, had things gone differently, Falkner Winery would have been able to work something out with Cork'd; say, provide a few samples to get -non biased- reviews, etc. Now, we'll never know.

Hope that explains it :)

Good Designers Copy, Great Designers Steal

Maybe they're just good designers, not great ones like us.

People who care come down harshly on this type of thing because it deserves it. If a student did this at the university, they'd be expelled. The fact that whenever a rip like this happens, there's always trolls in a comment thread asking, "What's the big deal?" is an argument in itself to make sure perpetrators are hammered hard when crap like this goes down.

If Sean is so sincerely religious here's an idea for atonement (happy Yom Kippur): Give all the money you made for this site design work to the designers behind Cork'd and Joyent as thanks for their 'inspiration' and spend a long lunch meeting with the client explaining to them why appropriation of other designer's work is wrong.

Andrew Boardman wrote:

"I don't like getting ripped off either, but it's still true that immitation is the highest form of flattery."

And Karim pointed out that Sean Alsobrooks said in an interview:

"For sure, imitation is the greatest form of flattery."

Aaaargh! Sorry if I come across as nitpicking, bit this is a pet peeve of mine. The actual saying is "Imitation is the *sincerest* form of flattery." If you change that word, you change the whole meaning of the saying. The saying is not meant to justify illegal forms of imitation, such as copyright or trademark infringement. It simply points out that someone who imitates you can be assumed to truly think highly of your work, as opposed to someone who merely complements you verbally, who may be simply flattering to get on your good side but not honestly think highly of your work.

Smtih — I think a good observation. Greg very likely undercut the sincerity of his 'this is wrong' message by appearing to Faulkner as simply an agressive salesman looking for an opening. Knowing Greg, I'm sure this wasn't the case, but if he really wanted to deliver the message effectively I agree that the sales component of his contact likely diminished any receptiveness Faulkner might have had.

To those who think that it's not a rip of the Joyent design, which is apparently in "a style found throught the web," and a typical "Web 2.0" design, please post three examples of other sites that do all of the following:

1. Use a subtle horizontal band with the vertical content box to echo the company's cross-shaped logo
2. Place horizontal navigation to the left of an introductory text area
3. Put additional navigation elements in a darker-shaded column directly under that horizontal navigation.

Meanwhile, is it just a coincidence that the people who think it's not a ripoff are the ones who can't spell? Gotta be. Right?

I'm curious, would people consider it a rip if the Joyent's front page looked more like http://joyeur.com/ (Joyent Blog)

I ask because structurally, the two sites (Joyent & Joyeur) are the same but look extremely different.

We are all imitators to one degree or another! Was the imitation that was done here a little too close to the original, I believe it was. But, I also believe Sean has recognized his mistake, sincerely apologized, and is making changes to the site. At this point, I don't think I would be quick too judge this man less we start scrutinizing the designs of those who seem to be the most offended. None of us would know anything about design unless we imitated it. Even those with there fingers clearly pointed in judgment have been guilty of imitating designs that were not their own. And if you disagree, then you must have started life as a designer instead of having to learn how to design. We should encourage Sean to do the right thing in this situation, and recognize his humble response in the face of much hate.

Robert - amen. :)

> What interests me right now is how long will the community hold on to this and beat the dead horse.

Since when is talking about IP theft and cavalier clients a dead horse? You should read through the comments, there are some really good points being made.

> I'm sure the last thing this discussion needs is the addition of another witch hunt for a ripped off design but I just discovered something and thought I'd share.

You're right, that's the last thing this discussion needs. I'm going to remove your link.

Greg > "Since when is talking about IP theft and cavalier clients a dead horse? You should read through the comments, there are some really good points being made."

It isn't the fact of your post, rather the 100 some comments that have gone on for days where everyone is taking their shot at Sean, even though he has done nothing to them personally.

I understand your motivation, Greg, for post your post because Dan is your friend. I understand that you felt you wanted to call Sean out on this, but when is enough, enough? Sean has apologize, but it seems to me that an apology isn't enough for this community. As far as redoing the site, Sean cannot make the decision and just redo it, he has to get the client to agree to it as well.

We all screw up, you and I included Greg. But how would it serve you if the community consistently and constantly attacked you, over and over? The only thing it does is tear a man down, not help him to change his ways.

I get the impression that helping someone learn their mistakes isn't really the goal here. Rather, people want to jump on the bandwagon and hurl insults at one person as much as they can.

You are correct though, there have been many good points made here, by you and by others. I just don't see the point of keeping attack going against Sean after he has apologized. If it was me, I'd close the comments to this post so the insistent attacks can cease. This has been enough humilating of one person and an enough reminder for all us.

> We all screw up, you and I included Greg

Uh, I can't speak for you but I have never ripped someone else's design and resold it. That's the key here that apologists keep missing, this isn't some punk who took design from someone else for his/her own use, this was a case of taking the work of others and reselling as original work. I don't consider that screwing up.

Greg, I wasn't speaking just about ripping a design, but about ripping anything, ever - lying, copying any copyright material, copying Apple's designs (which many well known and talented designers do).

As I said, Sean apologized, he said he didn't see it as taking someone elses work and reselling it, and you've chosen not to believe him. That's fine.

Tom D - When the sinner repents, God doesn't keep badgering the sinner with his/her sins. Otherwise, when Jesus does come, we are going to have to answer for all the sins we have committed and have asked for forgiveness for.

It's not that I disgree with the point being made here, but when is enough enough? Obviously many people here are getting self satisfaction at keeping the humilation of Sean going - that's sad.

Anyways, I've said my peace.

Robert, a couple points — it doesn't matter that Sean didn't see it as taking someone else's work and reselling it. It's what it was. Personally, I'd wish he'd make his apology a bit more clear that he *now* understands that's what it was (and frankly continues to be). But as said above, this isn't about humiliation or badgering Sean. Frankly, I couldn't care less about Sean and I'm sure it's unlikely that I'll ever personally come in contact with him or his company's work. What's critical is that this type of practice stop, and that all the people who voice, "I don't understand what's so bad" comments begin to understand and to take it for the type of reprehensible behaviour it is.

wow so sad in fact that my post was removed when I did not agree lol sad really sad!!!