The Haystack

I recently resorted to internet vigilantism when I found that a web development agency had blatantly stolen characteristic elements of the Cinnamon website for use on their own website. I asked them to remove these elements immediately. When they did not, I blogged about it.

This was very effective. The company was wrong, and I did not want them to get away with it, which they probably would have if I had taken the usual route. And it would’ve given me a headache.

At the time of this writing I don’t have a spectacular amount of readers on this blog. But I do have a few influential ones. I believe Seth Godin would call these people Sneezers. They spread the virus quickly. And Google likes that. After two days, the company changed their site, removing the elements in question. (Aside: Okay, a little sleuthing seems to indicate they have posted comments to my blog and another after they had changed their site, posing as random readers who “couldn’t find any hint of plagiarism on the site in question”. I digress.)

So I got what I wanted. Copyright infringement eradicated. But now when one searches for that company’s name in Google, they find a link to my post. That is Not Good For Publicity. Which is great, as long as they’re still infringing my copyright. But they aren’t anymore. Which leads us to an ethical dilemma.

Did these people piss me off by stealing our work, being unprofessional in their correspondence? Yes. Should they be punished forever? I don’t think so. So I have done the unthinkable in blogland: I have censored my own original post. Let the debate begin.

I see no advantage in damaging the company’s reputation, and quite frankly, I’m just satisfied that they have removed our stuff. That’s all I wanted in the first place.

The ethical part

The original post has been edited to replace the actual company name (which for obvious reasons was originally in the title) with “Company X” and remove all links to the site in question. Comments have been closed. I have also removed the screenshots, which are now unnecessary. There is one screenshot which says it all, posted on Flickr and tagged with piratedsites. That’s staying where it is. The name is only in the bitmapped photo, so it won’t be indexed anyway. The original link to the post will be redirected to the new version. Replacements are marked up with <ins></ins>.

Since I have never published their company name except for on this website, the above seems fair to me.

The vigilante part

This is a one time deal. If I notice another infringement of our copyright on the site in question or on any of the sites in their portfolio, I will put the original post back up, add a new one, and make sure they get Dugg.

Have a nice day.

This post has been edited since first publication. See my lengthy explanation.

Update: Company X have changed their site as of May 22, 2007. They seem to have removed our material.

Note: This is my personal reaction to Company X’s violation of Cinnamon’s copyright, and is not necessarily the reaction of our company. Cinnamon’s post can be found at the Cinnamon Blog (in Dutch).

I hate it when people call themselves designers and then blatantly steal the work of other designers and imply that it’s their own. And that seems to be what Company X Design (”Design” is perhaps an overstatement) has done with elements of the Cinnamon design. It’s so blatantly done, it’s laughable. I mean, at least tweak the damn design—change the color or something—like any self-respecting talentless hack would. Once again, we seem to support my theory that most copycats are complete idiots. As opposed to the last time, I’m now armed with screenshots.

[screenshot removed]

This is not a debatable point. It’s not a question of if copyright has been violated, but in how many ways. Three, from my first observations. All in the header. Let’s examine this using some comment overlays.

First, the type image. [screenshot removed]

Secondly, the tagline under that image. [screenshot removed]

Thirdly, the small images used to lead to our portfolio. [screenshot removed]

I wrote a polite but firm e-mail to these people requesting that they remove the offending elements within 24 hours. They did not. (Update (2007.05.20): I did receive an e-mail from them today, dated May 18, in which they ask me to specify exactly which images and text I am referring to. No contact information and no name was given. I promptly sent a non-sarcastic version of the above screenshots.) I threatened appropriate action if they did not. Obviously this made no impression. Now I’ve posted this. Company X, it’s your own fault. This was the appropriate action I was going to take. A simple blog post. Everything I know about search engines tells me that when people search for you, there’s a decent chance they’ll see this post. Since every time someone comes to your site they see elements of our work passed off as yours, it seems a fair trade. Enjoy the free publicity.

Now I’m willing to bet a few things, and I’ll update this post as they happen, just to increase my Nostradamus-factor:

1. Company X have at least one very good reason to have not answered my e-mail (beware: I will post your sorry excuse here). I have received an e-mail response. See above.
2. They will indicate that someone else did the design for them, or they bought it, or some such worthless bullshit, and that they had no idea that copyright infringement had taken place.
3. Who? What? Huh?

I don’t mind if people allow themselves to be inspired by my work and the work of my team, but don’t steal it and pass it off as your own.

Have a nice day.