It's almost like what happens to Mercedes Benz. Companies like Mitsubishi shamelessly copy MBZ designs. They've been doing it for years. MBZ's answer is to continuously innovate.

Obsolete you own product.

That's the whole point of patent and copyright law. They're defenses against locusts. The fact that these laws have been abused and need reform should not obscure their underlying value and purpose, which is actually becoming clearer than ever.

"Constantly reinvention" is just total bullshit when you start talking about salt and pepper shakers. And so is the idea of "staying ahead of the curve" when doing so means a non-stop torrent of additions to landfills everywhere. Good designers get this. They're actually very resourceful people who are trying to make the world work better in ways both small and large. Squandering resources with a stream of pointless variations doesn't square with this ethos at all.

The difference between design and trash is that good design is what you hold onto for years, even generations. What the best designers strive for is the elegant solution, a perfect convergence of form and function that resists further change for as long as humanly possible.

Again, the opposite of fashion.

Since the web is a place where things are very easily copied, it stands to reason that good ideas will be emulated and this is to be expected.

It would seem quite contrary to the idea of the web to give a single entity a monopoly on laying out a page in a particular way.

If you do, you'll see that we're not talking about general conventions here (e.g. the similar layouts of YouTube and Kickstarter pages). Nor is this "emulation" in many cases. It's just unvarnished theft (i.e. using the same copyright protected photos as backgrounds).

Best thing to do is to send the owner a Cease & Desist letter, and if they're based in the US, a threat to have the site pulled by the webhost under the DMCA in the event that the owner refuses to comply. It's diplomatic to give the owner a way to save face be acknowledging that that may also be getting victimized by an unscrupulous third party who is passing off the work of others as their own. But also note that this doesn't change the facts of the matter, and state that, one way or another, the site must come down immediately.

You shouldn't say or offer anything else until they call you back and offer you a chance to gauge their demeanor. Chances are good, they're going to be angry. Question is, at who? If it's with you (for ruining their day) then fuck 'em. They're not the kind of people you want anything to do with. Just tell them they have 24 hours to comply or you'll have the site pulled for violating copyrights, and that you won't release the claim unless they pay you several thousand dollars. However, if they're reasonable, they'll be angry with their vendor, apologetic with you, and then you can turn the exchange into a sales call.

Also, there's a legal concept called trade dress, which protects the signature elements of a product. Mitusibusi copies Mercedes, but only to point. And that point is defined by law. This law explains why the imitations are so pale, and why the markets for Mitsubishis and Mercedes have so little overlap.

That doesn't mean that Mercedes can stagnate. It's a design icon, after all, and has to fit within a larger sphere that is always changing. But protection for its brand does mean can move at a more considered and deliberate pace (good conditions for thoughtful, lasting design), then it could if competitors could make perfect copies with no appreciable latency.

Slow moving design is a feature, not a bug. You'll note that cars that hit on a relatively unchanging design that doesn't date itself quickly have higher resale values than those that don't (like, ahem, Mitsubishi).

Mitsubish are selling product, while this is a portfolio design and thus should require less attention while you work on clients.

The solution is not to blame the victims of the theft. Agreed that shaming isn't always the best idea either though.

That's because the product of Getty Images is the image. You're not infringing on their branding, you're taking their actual product. Apples and oranges.

There is no copyright on web pages. Web pages are there to be seen and thus their source to be copied. By even watching your page its in my cache now. I could copy it and use it.

If you where a little bit smarter some .js code might have protected for easy copying, but you didnt do that, who to blame ? you perhaps?

"Just a work of art"

"Just a musical composition"

"Just a book"

"Just a piece of software"

"Just a photograph"

I don't think folks should be able to steal these things (or anything) just because they're "easy to copy". I also don't think that adding more DRM to the world (ie. "some .js code") is the answer.

> Just because it's possible to steal something, you/society should allow it to happen?

A closer comparison would be: you heard me tell a story. You don't think society should allow you to tell it to someone else because I 'own' it, and to tell someone else is to 'steal' from me.

You can spend your life arguing over who copied whom and by how much - or you can accept the flattery, get on and do the next thing.

Regards your second sentence, that is what I'm saying. A large company that's put lots of resources into something fighting of another company who "stolen" their idea, while tedious, makes some sense. For an individual, I can't see how it's worth the time, stress or money to worry about copyright.