>> From the images we've seen all side by side this seems to be a rip of someone else's work.

I really doubt that is the sentiment here on HN (at least).

Check: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5342360 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5331766

IMO, what Layervault did was wrong in issuing a DMCA for what "they" perceive as 3 images that look similar.

sigh Not this again.

From the images we've seen side by side, it is not a copy of someone else's work. The artwork is not identical, and is not similar enough that you have to say "they just took a copy of the artwork and altered it a little bit." That's the standard that needs to be met for the DMCA -- not "he made icons that are similar to mine," but "he downloaded my icons and used them as his own."

> From the images we've seen all side by side this seems to be a rip of someone else's work.

From the images I've seen side by side, it's very clearly not.

> From the images we've seen all side by side this seems to be a rip of someone else's work.

Well, no. It seems to be very much not that.

>From the images we've seen all side by side this seems to be a rip of someone else's work. C'om on man, We've all seen the images side by side and they are definitely not ripped off. Unless you've got a eye sight problem you should be able to see the differences. If I drew a bracelet with round beads and you drew a bracelet with round beads does that mean I copied it from you? Of course not, If you look at the images you can see they're defiantly not ripped.

The current trend in web design is these ever-simpler icon designs. I can imagine there's only so many ways you can represent common icons using simple geometric shapes and (the infamous) rounded corners. LayerVault may feel they have a case, but I'm sure there's 5 other icon sets out there that could claim LayerVault is infringing on them.

The simpler and less colorful we make icons, the more we'll relalize we'd made the same icons 25 years ago with windows 3.1. LV may feel like they have a case, but only because they've put shudders on and are only looking at their own work and not the entire industry they are built upon.

Your assuming someone nicked your stuff. With millions of sites out there are a lot of layouts, icons, and whatnot that look similar that are not in fact copy's. Worse designers are rarely the type of people that think of the (millions) ^ 2 possibilities.

Honestly, unless your talking about a large file with a lot of entropy your probably in the wrong sending a DMCA take-down request.

"Worse designers are rarely the type of people that think of the (millions) ^ 2 possibilities."

Yes. Clearly designers are incapable of original thinking.

Generalizations are fun!

You misunderstand, many people assume when looking at rare events you need to consider the direct odds but forget about the false positive rate. Which is really more the preview of drug trials than design schools.

>Your assuming someone nicked your stuff

you're

>Honestly, unless your talking about a large file with a lot of entropy your probably

you're, you're

> that are not in fact copy's.

And you missed the inverse.. Pedantry is non constructive.

mate and that's actually DOES NOT changes his point =) grammar Nazies should stop reading hacker news

I suppose spelling it like that is how you work round Godwin's law.

>I've had articles I've sent hours writing and issued DMCA takedown notices

Just because something took you hours by itself doesn't mean that it's protected under copyright law.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

Of course, if someone copy pasted your writing, you're entitled to protection. However, that is certainly not the case here. This is just about similar icons(some of which actually resemble other works) and colors.