@jcutrell The review process is that you are invoking federal law and under penalty of perjury if you're just blowing wind. I typically see these kind of laws being invoked by huge corporations in an attempt to snuff out F/OSS but rarely in something as small-time as this.

What's not so clear is what happens after the counter-notice. Is the same "hands-off" approach used for those as well? Will the repo be re-instated as soon as it's submitted?

@hoolio as much as that makes sense. Random open source projects don't have the funds to go to court.

So I could just submit a DCMA notice to any random project for no reason at all and have it taken down? Sounds to me like at least some small amount of evidence should be provided to back their claim. And from what I'd read, non is.

If http://i.imgur.com/xDDULcG.png is in fact the reasons for the DCMA takedown notice (which have in fact been removed) then its just a matter of it being similar looking. Which renders the DCMA null and void as DCMA requires a copyrighted work being presented, not an inspiration or sort of copy.

I agree 100% that Github doesn't have the right to decide if it comes down to it. But DCMA notices should at least contain some sort of evidence to support the claim.

I'm just wondering... if one were to send an DMCA notice about rails's repository, would GitHub take it down automatically as per the DMCA rules too?

@shesek, if you're willing to risk a perjury charge, find out!

Github should open the "Flat UI" repo and the society can decide where the truth and lies.

The system has a clear flaw. If anyone can write 20 words and take down projects, we need seriously to think this matter.

About the LayerVault guys, well, they're claiming the owner of the repo made 3 icons similar to them, they did also another based on others artists, so far I could check on Hacker News.

Claiming that someone made "similar" icons is not enough - it's perfectly legit, if uninspired, to do so. Only if actual copying of assets has happened would it be copyright infringement, and so far, nothing seems to point to that being the case.

Should we all edit the DMCA to be more accurate? :)

@ScarlettSparks For what it's worth, there are a number of specific elements necessary for a DMCA takedown notice to be considered valid. In this instance, the original lacked specific reference to the copyrighted material in question along with the actual items the claimant believed to be infringing. In their absence, there's no duty to act.

Given the rise in false takedown notices that's been going on for the past few years, I'd have expected your DMCA policy to give you the flexibility to properly reject notices that are invalid on face without having to concern yourselves about making a determination on veracity of the claim itself. It's certainly something to run by counsel at some point.

<sarcasm> I think we all know that it's totally unacceptable to make something similar in style or colors to something that already exists. I mean, seriously, do we really need all these websites and stuff? </sarcasm>

Really, though, if you didn't actually copy any assets, I don't see how this could possibly be a valid claim. You can't copyright "stuff that's kinda similar to my stuff. Sorta."

I agree with @bluestrike2. They didn't actually reference a specific copyrighted material, which invalidates the DMCA takedown. Github can probably do something to reduce the negative effects of these takedowns. Ideally, you could have your lawyer make sure they adhere to DMCA requirements. If that's not possible, you could at least contact the owner of the material before it's taken down (I'm not sure what kind of time you have to act upon the DMCA takedown), giving them options for how to react to it. This could allow them to prepare a counter-notice and possibly file it with you before the takedown has any observable effects.

Just thought this was relevant to the discussion. http://fixthedmca.org/ If ya'll can contact your representative for some corrections to the DMCA.

Apparently a lot of people didn't realize how crazy the DMCA is. If nothing else, this incident will have enlightened some people and if any are US voters, maybe it will be the push needed for them to call their congress critter and complain :)

The Flat-UI project page says it was forked 129 times ... and those projects may themselves have forks (and so on). With Git's distributed nature, there might be clones not controlled by Github at all. It would be a pretty daunting prospect for LayerVault to chase down all the copies of this project given what might already be "in the wild".

As I know all explicit clones hosted at github auto down also at primary repo down. I see this in action when our cmangos project repo has been down recently by same reason at some time. This make trolls happy use like nice tool as DMCA hammer a lot.

For the lazy, ender7 wrote a summary of the claims that LV/DN is making (on HN):

Some icons appear to be heavily inspired by LV.
Here are three icons (circled) from Flat-UI: http://i.imgur.com/xDDULcG.png
You can see that the gears and news icons do bear some similarity to LV's versions: http://dribbble.com/shots/800428-LayerVault-icon-set-for-del... and http://imgur.com/rli5IVU (the latter via http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332741)
In addition, LV claims that Flat-UI ripped off a number of other icons from dribble.com, such as this clock and map (Flat-UI above, originals below): http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K (original dribble links: http://dribbble.com/shots/695458-Nasa-Playbook-Icons and http://dribbble.com/shots/877061-Map-2013).
Finally, the color schemes have been claimed to be identical: http://pixxel.co/feed/layervault-issues-dmca-takedown
LV appears to be confused as to what constitutes copyright infringement. None of these icons are actually copies of the original, and even if they were LV would not have a right to issue a DMCA takedown for the ones they didn't own.
This seems to be a massive PR blunder for the LV guys. They could have put up a blog post enumerating how many of their (and others') designs were ripped off (which is not the same thing as copyright infringement) and probably garnered some internet sympathy. Now, by misusing the much-hated DMCA takedown notice they've positioned themselves in the same camp with all the DMCA bullies we have grown to loathe.

Layervault use currently: jQuery 1.8.1, Prototype.js, script.aculo.us, VideoJS,... No Bootstrap in sight. It's clearly a JQuery UI / Proto mashup UI.

if this is flat, then someone tell me what isometric is?

Ah... this is just a waste of time. I don't think Layervault are behind it; if they are - they're pretty dumb. But they use GitHub and open source many of their stuff. Surely they'd know this would be damaging to their rep (and Klout score 😆:)?

If anyone was copied here, it was First National Bank of South Africa - just look, only the pinkish colour is missing:

Re: 735e176#commitcomment-2753846

Those look very mush like Google icons. Replace the hues with primary colors and see.

Everything is a copy of something. This is ridiculous. I'm going to mope in a corner

Counter-notice commit reference: 6a33a21

I think this issue is unnecessarily going long, there seems to be no reason of keeping DMCA after the removal of offending icons.

Rest is Metro UI.

735e176#commitcomment-2752572 - I think that's a good idea. It is, after all, open source. Fork, edit as necessary... pull-request-bomb them.

Well, it would be a nuisance, but to the wrong person(s). This isn;t the DMCA. It's GitHub complying with them. @ScarlettSparks - respect.

735e176#commitcomment-2752128 - Well... http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/?metric=targets - one by one, Big Data is proving the conspiracy buffs' theories that they are patsies for the govt. Fold under questioning. No spine. Has anyone proved this wrong - any "Big Data" entity, that is?

This can't be serious.

This is easily the stupidest DMCA takedown notice I've ever seen – and we've had quite a few in this repository. How many files were copied? None. How many images were used? Zero. How much copy was snagged? Nil.

What was copied? Absolutely nothing.

LayerVault, please don't turn the open web into an Apple vs. Samsung DMCA war.

BoycottLayerVault

735e176 - Agreed. Don't want to go against GH on this. Just wanted to make a point.

BoycottLayerVault

BoycottLayerVault stupid idiots

Not such things as bad publicity, more people will find out who LayerVault is from this than anything else.

BoycottLayerVault

BoycottLayerVault

I can't believe that the threshold for a DMCA notice claim is simply that LayerVault is the sole owner of the works. No where did LayerVault specify which works they were claiming (aside from saying the whole thing was theirs) which it obviously isn't based upon the differences.

Off topic but my conversation with LayerVault founder about something totally different.

https://twitter.com/beatak/status/303645320129171456

(by going through it, i think they won't listen anything)

Yeah, I'm definitely not going to use LayerVault for ANYTHING now. I hate bullies who hide behind DMCA notices, and that's exactly what they are. You simply can't (or shouldn't be able to) copyright look and feel. Period. I'm sickened by their behavior.

Just leave from using LayerVault tool

From the comments @designmodo made, we can see that he is having trouble with English. Maybe that is the reason LV had trouble communicating with him. (as per their claims)

@github We would like to see this resolved soon. I really liked the Flat-UI project.

BoycottLayerVault

Even if part of the icon and UI are sort of similar to #LayerVault, @designmodo's work on html/sass to make the ui working with bootstrap is genuine and should be respected.

I support Designmodo on this. Dribbble has been full with these kind of flat designs for almost an year now. The DMCA takedown notice is out of line and down-right revolting.

LayerVault cannot copyright a color and a simple line progress bar. They are not Apple yet.

Please reinstate the repository.

I see lots of comments here saying that GitHub should have interpreted the complaint in some way, or considered it unreasonable. Quite the contrary; in order to remain a service protected by safe harbor, they legally cannot interpret a complaint under the DMCA (OCILLA, specifically). Several folks have pointed out that GitHub is compelled to act as they have, and I think this is a good opportunity to share why, which I think should be common knowledge for all people doing Internety things with their fingers and/or other input devices. Inevitably, in the wild world of what we do, you will probably brush with this law so you should be prepared.

Wikipedia discusses the specifics at length regarding OCILLA. In a nutshell, if a valid complaint comes in, you don't pass go or collect $200; you disable access (expeditiously) or lose your safe harbor. Period. The law also spells out the counter-notice flowchart, including an exact number of days that the content must remain disabled after a counter-notice until, if no further action is taken by the complainant, access to the content can be restored. This window is 10 to 14 days after counter-notice is sent to the complainant, and this time is built into the law to allow a complaining party to sue and use bigger guns like court orders. If you're calling for the repository to be reinstated immediately, you've got to read the law, I'm afraid; it is not legally possible for GitHub for a certain amount of time.

If you're on the wrong end of one of these claims and you're not pirating Kitchen Nightmares, conventional wisdom dictates (that's how I hedge, since IANAL) that you counter-notice quickly and prepare a case against the complainant. Keep on your service provider, too, but don't yell at them unless they drag you past 14 days. It's not their fault until then. If you find your stuff ripped off and want to use DMCA, read the law carefully before you send a notice and keep on your e-mail like a hawk, and be aware of that 10 to 14 day window.

Safe harbor is an important protection for players like GitHub, Facebook, Heroku, and countless others, and given the power of the Internet rapid takedown is sometimes crucial for an IP holder as well. That isn't to say that DMCA/OCILLA are without fault, as there are numerous faults (including the word "expeditious", which, just like magnets, nobody is quite too sure about).

The real enemy here is the law itself (lobby your district's appointed lobby target) and its flagrant and appalling abuse at the hands of LayerVault. I sympathize with a trade dress claim -- that's what's really being discussed here, if you want to read up on it -- but look at The Tetris Company for an example of how unhealthy vigorously defending trade dress can be. The DMCA has valid and useful purposes and, when it's on your side, the law can be a lifesaver. It's orgs like LayerVault that ruin it for everyone else, and designers and engineers alike should keep an eye on the outcome here.

Some specific responses:

I'm just wondering... if one were to send an DMCA notice about rails's repository, would GitHub take it down automatically as per the DMCA rules too?

Sucks, huh?

If it were valid, they'd be compelled. Thankfully, you'd then be open to civil liability and other remedies described in the law (and you can bet the Rails people would very likely pursue it). I doubt you'd go to jail, but I will hedge the hell out of that assertion by saying crazy things happen in criminal law all the time and, well, a legal DMCA notice will put you on the hook for perjuring yourself (as many have pointed out).

What's not so clear is what happens after the counter-notice. Is the same "hands-off" approach used for those as well? Will the repo be re-instated as soon as it's submitted?

Specifics of GitHub's policy aside, this process is spelled out in the law. If LayerVault is serious, they sue, and obtain a court order to keep the content offline once the counter-notice window expires. Otherwise, in 10 to 14 days, assuming GitHub has sent the counter-notice, we see the reappearance of this content. GitHub is equally compelled to restore access if and when the window opens, barring separate legal action.

I'm not sure about any specifics around a withdrawn complaint, and I don't recall the law discussing it. I think the 10 to 14 day window is absolute now, no matter what.

that is simply not how copyright law works. similarities notwithstanding, these components were implemented completely independently of the LayerVault ones. they share no common code or graphical assets.

Trade dress is what we're looking for here, which has a legal relationship with copyright that I'm not qualified to talk about.

IANAL, etc.

way to go LayerVault.

BoycottLayerVault

IT IS Impossible that Layervault has copyright on that "colorpalette", because I have used the exact colors much earlier than them.
The colorpalette is exactly the one I use througout my CV. When did Layervault start using these colors? I started using it February 2010.

You can't own style, bro.

"You can’t own style. Style is commodity. Own an intelligent process for making decisions and you’ll have a defensible and competitive advantage." - Keenan Cummings

This is just sad.. :(

Flat UI clearly bit off of LayerVault's style... the palette is nearly identical... the typeface has a very similar feel... the elements themselves have similar weight, rounding, etc etc etc. Whatever, though! It's barely even "uncool", let alone ILLEGAL, to do that.

Designmodo put out a great set of design elements that will continue to popularize this refreshing trend in UI design.

This reminds me of the debate that happened with Svbtle and Obtvse...

I can respect LayerVault's feeling here – that of immense pride in their work. It's only natural to get pissed off when someone bites your style. However I don't respect their decision to "cry lawyer". We live in a remediated world – everything is available to be stolen and get remixed into another creative work. This does not constitute copyright infringement, and artists should take care to see the bright side of being imitated. It means that your vision has been sufficiently widespread and meaningful so as to inspire imitators! It's a compliment... not an affront.

👮

bfontaine commented on 735e176 a day ago
Here are three icons (circled) from Flat-UI:

Say, those icons look quite familiar. Especially that ourobouros one... hey, what's this...?

©️ FAIL, that's what.

Kickfolio is a rip off of First National Bank - proof below... (ref: 735e176#commitcomment-2750982)

• Kickfolio:
• FNB:

Off topic-ish, but interesting (well, I found it flat-out riveting)... the "Allan" person on the Twit thing owns a flat! why we didn't "issue a DMCA".

I wish I owned a flat.

Sounds like an unsolicited request to sell me a flat.

Did you really just come in here and take this opportunity to make a joke instead of clarifying what appears to be a ridiculous position taken by your company?

@allang This DMCA takedown appeal quite frankly, sir, is unsolicited. Reminds me of the Apple and "Round-Corner-Gate" {vid src: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkDz4wMI9J8}

Not too long before someone on Reddit or 4chan makes a Hitler/Flat-UI video.

In all seriousness, this thread is testimony to the sheer absurdity of this thing. Forget @designmodo - maybe some are, I for one am not protecting them. I'm stunned that colors and a framework based off (or is similar to) Twitter's Bootstrap, resembles Metro, Google+, Plus-strap, Cosmo... heck even Foundation. Oh, and Tumblr's icons! (many years old, mind you)

I've never seen anything like this on GitHub. Ever.

I want to mention a little story, quickly. I came across a little agency from Italy called neotokio - have a look at that link. That is beautiful. And handmade, no Bootstrap, no premade framework per se. Now, check this out.
And that is why I respect that little creative studio.

@caryhartline - DMCA notices do not cover "blatant rip-offs". They cover copyright violations, which have not occurred here. The notice doesn't even bother to list any specific file names.

BoycottLayerVault

Check this
http://imgur.com/IH1osAD
&
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ThereIsOnlyOneCloudIconInTheEntireUniverse.aspx

does this call for flat ui dos or what?

Edit: make a new similar project called flat-uii

Patent trolls starting to attack github ? Was only to be expected.

BoycottLayerVault

@hoolio @github If github even bother to read the DMCA only covered the artwork. "I am the exclusive rights holder for the artwork contained within Flat UI" Github disabled access to all files, not just the artwork, so in this case Github is to blame, nothing in the DMCA states that Github have the right to remove the README.md

@Fireblaze - At the risk of bringing this sorted affair up again, I felt a need to reply. Sorry in advance.

IMO, the deficiencies of the original DMCA have already been covered), and I'll admit that I think Github erred in acting upon the takedown in spite of those deficiencies, I think it's relatively fair to say that you're a bit off the mark in your criticisms. Given the nature of git and version control in general, I can't really see how things could have been handled differently in terms of the actual takedown after the decision to comply was made.

Assume they block access to the offending files and all corresponding URLs along the tree. What about the git repository itself? Should Github then take it upon themselves to rebase repos? In which case, you turn what could be a temporary situation (counter-notifications, etc.) in 14 days and turned it into a permanent fiasco by ensuring that every single local copy in existence and the gh remote are all entirely FUBAR… to use the legal term.

What's worse, by going beyond their own legal obligations and destroying (in effect) a company's repository and actively interfering with their ability to function as a result of a destructive third-party rebase, Github would be opening the door to future claims. Even if that weren't the case, the effects on user trust would be devastating.

Of the possible options for actually implementing takedowns, Github's approach is by far the least destructive option available: it preserves flexibility should the counter-notification process be successful, ensures Github meets its obligations while protecting their safe-harbor status, and allows them to avoid entangling themselves with all sorts of nasty scenarios with potential third party liability claims. Plus, they manage to do it all with a strong dose of sunlight and transparency.

(TL;DR) As far as DMCA policies go, you can do a hell of a lot worse. In fact, that's more the norm than anything. So count your blessings and quit agitating for Github to break out a scythe to carve wantonly.

Just wanna say, this is the most EPIC of threads on GH, ever. Or in the top 5 at least