288 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 318 ms ] thread
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Pehaps you could reference these guys on your site as evidence of love for your design chops :)

Incidently - did you check whether these are individul copies or multiple clones by one person/organisation?

Anyway, if assets are being hotlinked you could have some fun...

Exactly. It's a really nice layout, but honestly -- should the essence here (full page photo, small menu at top right, logo at top left, Title/quote in middle with "more info" button) really be "protectable" IP? I just don't see it, sorry.

That doesn't make those designers (or probably just one) honorable or talented or honest. But they have the right to clone layouts too.

Go deeper into both the original site and the competitors; they didn't just steal the front page.
It's definitely IP theft, down to the minute details like the red underline on links. The way the images uncover the footer on the bottom is really unique too.
Took me a second cup of coffee to detect the sarcasm. I like you.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarcastic. The links on the top right aren't standard. The footer also has a funky styling. Check out the page to see. Just from reading my comment and not examining the styling I see how it could sound sarcastic.
There is nothing anyone is designing that is original.
I thought you were being sarcastic too; these are all very common trends. The problem here isn't the fact that the layout is original (it's not), it's that the code is being ripped straight from the site.
He mentions that he found the sites due to getting odd values from google analytics, which makes me suspect that they copied the (copyrightable) page markup. That said, I agree with the comment that just selling a WordPress layout is probably going to provide him with the best outcome.
This, they copied markup. Some files even have names from our team members who coded them.
I don't think you looked hard enough, there was plenty of code taken vertabim if you look at the source.
Indeed, I didn't. Note that the linked blog post didn't reference code theft specifically, and it's important to distinguish the two. Copyright violations are cut and dry, and should be condemned. Merely cloning a site design is not, and we shouldn't be lumping them together.
wow, some of those copies were just blantant. Is there a way to embed a specific string in the website (either through html or css) so later you can somehow google search anyone is copying you?
Given that they might not have very good CSS skill, you might embed a CSS comment or CSS properties which look like they do something but don't -- a would-be stealer probably wouldn't delete something which they didn't understand.
(comment deleted)
Make a premium WordPress theme based on this design, slap a price on it, and distribute through WordPress theme sites thereby creating an additional income stream for your company. I'm in Miami and I'd be happy to help.
+1 on this. I came here to say that this seems like an awesome opportunity to sell what seems to be quite the hit.

That people are taking the risk of illegally copying it and being publicly shamed speaks volumes for the desirability of your design.

Totally agree here. Give them a legal way to 'copy' it and you'll make some money on it. Maybe even make the copyable version easier to install and look slightly different.
+1 on this. Also you will receive a lot inbound links. Be fast on this because someone else could be doing this right now...
Me too. Even better, give the stuff for free and offer paid help. Because, obviously these guys could use some.
Agree, if you make a twitter bootstrap theme you'll find someone who's willing to pay for it too.
I might actually do this, we were just discussing this at the office!
I would buy this -- its quite nice -- and repurpose it to something other then web design / development
I would buy this as well, it's really a beautiful layout. Hence the copying.
You provided the links to those websites, and added that you're not sure how to proceed.

From your post, I get the impression that you have not yet spoken to those companies about it.

That would be a good start.

That's what I was thinking.

1) What if someone took their design, created a template of it, and sold it on a number of website template sites - and these companies were none-the-wiser.

2) Was the design created in-house, or did they hire a designer? Some designers claim the design was all of their own doing, but it was quite obvious they "borrowed" from a template site first.

Trouble is - web site design is very fashion oriented. You can tell a 2011 site from a 2012 site. I find a lot of sites are very similar and put it down to a common fashion more often than copying. Font selection, icon colours and general layout is bound to "cluster" around a limited range of values at the leading edge. Look at the "please review our start-up" requests here on HN - most of those web sites pretty near interchangeable.

Having said all of that - copying is a no-no - taking inspiration from others - well that would be normal.

I always feel like its a flash website at first :P

But yeah, I didn't realize either so many just flat out copy website designs. I guess this is a pretty common thing now :(

It's _always_ been a common thing. Stuff like Google analytics just makes it way easier to tell that they're actually copying _you_.
Alright alright.
Finally! A .co site that isn't abusing the Colombian TLD for some stupid naming gimmick.
Just noticed - based on the IP lookups 3 of these websites are located in Houston. Coincidence?
Either those companies are with a bigger/popular hosting company (IIRC The Planet was located in Houston and I guess their datacenter wasn't closed down after their acquisition) or it's a link bait.

Either way - too few information to make an educated guess.

Or a Houston-based "web designer" ripping off a single design for local clientele?
The whois info paints a similar picture, but clustered in Australia – many of the companies seem to be in AU, with one in India and one in London.

If a number of them are being hosted in Houston, I'd say that there's clearly a connection here... one crappy "designer" selling "unique websites" to multiple unaware clients, possibly?

Probably not. This town is full of hacks and thieves. (just like all the other towns I guess).
they might be just hosted in huston. Three of the sites are owned by companies located in India
The propeller site I'd consider flattering imitation, at least they are in a totally different lob :)

For the other guys, talk to a lawyer or just someone who knows "legalese" well enough to formulate a serious sounding email complaining about copyright infringement and threatening with a lawsuit. And have someone with a title of "copyright lawyer" or "IP legal consultant"or anything along the lines co-sign that email. They will shit their pants and change their design (they probably hired a freelancer that copied your work...). Unless they're based in a place forsaken by the IP gods, like China or Russia, then it might get too complicated to be worth the effort on your side...

smacontech and smipropellers seem to be from India where you can't win a legal case without bribing the authorities heaviliy, unless your father himself is the head of cops or something.

And anyway, law enforcement depts there wouldn't understand what "copying the layout of a website" means.

I'd guess that smacontech created the site for smiproperllers.
The propeller site actually uses the ideaware site's background image, slightly blurred, as it's cloudscape background.
This is an amazing observation. I can't believe they used the actual image from your front page on theirs.
Haha, the smacontech guys even include a javascript file with your site's name on it:

line 173: <script src="./smacontech_files/ideaware.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

Even copied their google analytics js file.
This is how I first noticed them, our GA was showing some weird links.
Hahahahaha! That is seriously incompetent.
Even better: the `_files` part in directory name indicates that they simply used "Save website to file" option in IE, which puts the dependent assets in directory named using this pattern. I imagine they just edited the HTML markup afterwards, without even bothering to check what's inside that directory.
The propellers site is so similar I halfway wonder if it's a parody of your site. "We handcraft propellers."
It must be because I can't imagine anyone would prefer handmade propellers to industrial manufactured ones.
Oh calm down. You had a good idea and started a trend. Don't whine about copiers - you're the source of great ideas, so come up with another one. That, or be the best at implementing this idea.
There's a difference between taking influence from a site and downright stealing and even hot-linking assets.
I think they actually copy-pasted code straight out of ideaware's source... Hence > line 173: <script src="./smacontech_files/ideaware.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Of course people are going to come on here and say this crap without ever looking at the source code for the websites. They didn't just steal the idea, which is fair game, they stole the code.
I love how so many of them are just saturated with buzzwords and typical empty suit jargon. I guess stupidity and lack of ethics go hand in hand.
One actually gives birth to the other...
I'd say they both feed into each other bidirectionally.
You can search for "Corporate ipsum" on Google chrome to get an extension which create fill text with corporate buzzwords. My colleagues (non native anglophones) fell for it a few times watching at my mockups.
We had a similar problem with a talentless rogue designer at my old agency.

It only became clear he had blatantly copied other sites after he left, unfortunately (he was also sacked from future jobs for the same thing, I suspect).

He even had the audacity to claim an award for one of his rip-offs, including attending the vegas ceremony (IIRC). I really don't know how he slept at night.

I'm not going to name names as this was a long time ago and I'm hoping he's changed his ways.

All those other sites are complete shit compared to ideaware.co.

The only blatant ripoff is revoblue.com

You might want to add rel="nofollow" attributes to those outgoing links. This indicates to search engines that you do not want your links to influence the other sites' rankings. Not sure if this is possible with tumblr though.
Thanks for the support guys, I'm not too mad but definitely wanted to bring some attention to this.

I will reply to some of your comments in a bit.

(comment deleted)
Interesting, given the copying of the js directly, you could use that to your advantage. Have it behave one way if the page is served up from an IP address you own, and slightly differently served from a foreign address.

Could be sublime, like adds a menu item/link to their pages that has "Web Design Services" that points back to you, to the silly "Get free copyrighted material here" and a link to some dubious content site. Or it could just break periodically and cause them great frustration until they give up and use something else.

I completely agree to this method. Break their site with your js.
Assuming that the people who are copying this code are able to code themselves, wouldn't it be easy to find the problem and fix it?

Unless there was some incredible code obfuscation.

Subtle shenanigans could go for some time without being noticed.

And wouldn't people who can code themselves host their own javascript, rather than hotlinking someone else's?

This is what I was thinking, going all stuxnet on them and just subtly moving the advantage your way. The outlier is the propeller guys, they look like a site that hired a 3rd party team to build them a website, and that team ripped of this one and made it theirs. Screwing with it isn't going to send the right signal.
"Assuming that the people who are copying this code are able to code themselves"

Probably a generous assumption.

If you broke it in such a way that it made their site massively unprofessional or completely unusable, then they'd be forced to either redesign their site or take it offline. Either of which results in those sites no longer feeding off copied code.
Hey, if we have execute of JS on all those clients, why not REDIRECT them to your site? Free traffic. All relevant.
I'm generally against all forms of intentional defamation, but I must admit that this option is very tempting...

Are there any lawyers here that could weigh in on the legality of this?

And I would be especially interested in this site: http://www.creativegerms.com/about

I don't see any similarity at all (except for maybe some basic stuff that can be found on many websites) and including them into that "ripping off" article could be perceived as defamation. Did they just quickly switched to different design?

That one was a bit odd in my mind, too. Maybe it re-uses some code or something?

I can't find a cached version of it anywhere that shows what it looked like an hour or so ago

Wait, they've not merely copied his js, they're having him host it too? Oh exploitable. Figure out to make it benefit you. I'd have a hard time resisting the urge to play some mischief though.
No, at least the one I looked at didn't. But if they're just copy-pasting, he could add a domain check (or IP address check) and make it behave differently.

Edit: apparently some of them are! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5165238

When people press store / buy, have a 25% probability of redirecting to your store. In all other cases, do nothing.

This could stay hidden a lot longer.

Adding this to your JS could be fun...

if(document.location.hostname !== 'ideaware.co') {alert('Do not trust these thieves. They stole this design from ideaware.co');}

Or a little more subtle. A watermark: "Proof Copy - Design By ideaware.co Contact us to design your next website."
Better yet:

1. Phone home to a server they won't easily cmd+f find, with several backups

2. Allow the script to execute arbitrary javascript from said server

3. Store a list of requests and referrers

4. Alert, shame and redirect at your leisure

Obviously this will only work for future copiers that copy from your site.

(comment deleted)
Does this mean copyrights aren't worth anything these days?
No, it just means they're difficult to enforce, and most law enforcement agencies won't act unless the dollar loss is above a fixed minimum (which differs from place to place).
Do people need to be told this? If copyright still made sense, why would anyone bother with DRM?
If someone really wants to copy your site they will do it anyways. I think the best option if its getting this much attention is to release a pay plugin/template or just opensource it. Or as you have already done publicly shame them (not much to gain by doing this though).
Well one good thing about the rip off sites is I'm able to see what you designed originally while HN hammers your server!
Looks like you could start selling this design and at least profit from these people.
This is what happens when a company contracts someone for $9/hr and says "Make me something like [url] for my site".
This may very well be the case!
Looks to be true, but if this is a day-to-day concern for your business things must be running themselves. Consider it a badge of honor, like your application being valuable and important enough to become warez. I'm guessing your value-add proposition goes way beyond looking good on your first page. I would however take concern with those so sloppy they are using your bandwidth.
You could easily use this to your advantage: 1. Your portfolio is now larger (my designs + people who ripped off my designs) 2. You could create a "Submit sites that ripped off our design" for your customers and create a conversation around it 3. Ask the sites to reference yours in their footer 4. Modify the ripped off source files to display modified header/footer on external sites

You should be thanking them for creating so many opportunities for you. Why not expect everything will be stolen and go from there? It's all public files in the end.

"Our designs are so awesome we have a bunch of imitators (<link> <link> <link>) but we think you'll agree that our original designs are better! Often imitated, never duplicated."