
SOPA is all fun and games until NBC rips off Apple's artwork - brodd
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/30/sopa-is-all-fun-and-games-until-nbc-rips-off-apples-artwork/
======
jonnathanson
More likely than not, this _is_ \-- as the article surmises -- the result of
some intern at a far-flung backwater of NBC's having been sloppy. Probably a
Google image search for some query that incidentally returned Apple's artwork
among the pile, followed by a "Hey, that looks cool," followed by an
appropriation. This is copypasta, not intentional infringement. (It's
infringement just the same, and should be taken down, but there are mountains
and then there are molehills).

Let's remember the old dictum: never attribute to malice that which can be
attributed to stupidity.

I'm not excusing NBC in any way here, least of all for SOPA (those who've read
my comments and writings know I'm a huge opponent of the latter). But the
likelihood that anyone in any position of power at NBC even _saw_ that page is
slim to none. I've worked for NBC in a past life, and I can tell you that the
divisions responsible for these web pages don't even show up on the radar.
They're so far removed from the power centers of the organization that many
people probably aren't even aware they exist. (That, in itself, is a problem;
don't get me wrong).

If you want to find much more malicious and intentional rip-offs of this logo,
they abound on the interwebz. For example:

[http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-
content/uploads/bigthumbs/...](http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-
content/uploads/bigthumbs/500-600/preview-link-building-tools-better-online-
visibility.jpg)

Had NBC been using something like _that_ , I think we'd have far more cause
for indignation and uproar. Something like that image bespeaks a rather
deliberate and shameless attempt to rip off Apple's artwork.

~~~
krschultz
So?

A) Intent never seemed to matter in the SOPA debate.

B) A corporation is responsible for every employee, no matter how lowly,
that's the way it works. Look at the FedEx employee who threw a monitor he was
delivering over a fence on camera - even though he is but one of 20,000
delivery men, they still were completely responsible for that.

~~~
jonnathanson
I don't disagree with either of your points. I'm just saying that the spin
being put on this story is out of synch with the magnitude of the story.

~~~
read_wharf
It is spin, but if you step away from it, I don't think it's unwarranted.

This episode is an excellent demonstration that this sort of casual use is
part of the essence of the web. It's so fundamental that even a major
corporation does it incidentally. And if you hammer this sort of thing down,
you essentially kill the web.

~~~
jonnathanson
Well stated, and I concur. The irony of this situation is indeed noteworthy,
and it demonstrates a pretty biting critique of SOPA itself.

I guess I just see this as a smile-and-raise-an-eyebrow kind of story, and not
a break-out-the-pitchforks-and-torches kind of story.

~~~
khafra
They're not bad people for doing this. Doing this just demonstrates that
they're bad people for pushing SOPA.

------
cstuder
On a similar note: I've taken a picture back in 2007 of a notice beneath the
Sony Center in Berlin:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hymnos/1987519794/>

Sony PR was unable to clear all copyrights for pictures they had used in a
exhibition about the past of the building. And publicly admitted it.

------
RyanMcGreal
> so why not just steal it?

Can we _please_ stop using the terms "stealing" and "theft" to refer to
copyright infringement?

~~~
sp332
I think they're talking about appropriation, as in, NBC claims that Apple's
graphic is really their own. That's why it's "stealing."

~~~
RyanMcGreal
If I appropriate your lawn mower, you no longer have a lawn mower. That's
"stealing". If I use intellectual property that you own without your
permission, that's _copyright infringement_ , but you still possess both your
property and your rights to it. That's not "stealing".

~~~
zipdog
It is possible to steal IP though. If you assert ownership of an intellectual
property, then your next step can be to stop the original artist from claiming
royalties. An example would be the companies claiming ownership of public
domain films and then getting youtube to yank the public domain versions.

So if NBC was claiming they owned the Apple artwork, its stealing because that
ownership (if uncontested) allows them to collect royalties, etc.

------
Skroob
I'm also pretty sure the background on their page is Louie Mantia's work as
well. It's an older version that he's since replaced, but you can see it on
this site:
[http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.ht...](http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.html)

FWIW, the current version (Blueprint Neue) is here:
<http://mantia.me/wallpaper/blueprint/>

------
PeterisP
SOPA would be great - it would mean that the owner could (and should) go to a
judge and take NBC's website(s) offline. And then ask their official opinion
about SOPA.

------
talos
yowza that's pathetic -- they didn't even bother to efface the 'XCODE' text in
the lower right, or the Apple logo on the lower left!

[http://hometransformers.tv/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/hammer...](http://hometransformers.tv/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/hammer_icon.png)

~~~
hisabness
xcode photo was just removed, and intern probably fired. stolen background
image still in use.

~~~
blahedo
Still haven't removed the background wallpaper, though.

------
AgentConundrum
Off-topic, but that site was pretty much unreadable to me for a minute or so.
At the top of the page, in a fixed-position div, there was a share button with
an incrementing counter of shares.

My eye was constantly drawn to the ever-incrementing counter, but because it
was fixed, I couldn't scroll past it. Bad UX.

~~~
clebio
It's particularly annoying that the counter re-runs from zero just by
refreshing the page -- and yet shows the same final count each time. Is it
even _actually_ dynamic, does the counter increment in real time if there's a
new share while you're on the page?

~~~
AgentConundrum
I think it actually is a live counter. I fired up HTTPFox and the page keeps
sending requests to a URL containing
"stream.thenextweb.fyre.co/livecountping/" - it appears to be intermittently
polling for a new count, but I didn't notice it actually increment when I read
the site the first time, and I'm not interested in monitoring it now to be
sure.

------
ambirex
Giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, this easily could have been a
placeholder image that was missed when it was pushed into production.

The real problem is the gulf between the law and perception on what is content
"theft". There are many people who wouldn't see a problem using the XCode logo
for other purposes (read <http://clientsfromhell.net/> for several examples of
people not understanding copyright infringement).

The article seems a little overblown in its tone. We should allow NBC the same
latitude we would want if one of our employee's had made the same mistake. We
should also ask NBC to support legislation that would allow for education and
forgiveness.

~~~
Monkeyget
That's why you ought to put a big ugly red placeholder text on every temporary
content.

~~~
TheBranca18
Or just use a website like <http://placehold.it> and grab an image:
<http://placehold.it/256x256>

It's pretty obvious then when you need to replace something before going into
production.

------
MRonney
Super long, condemning article that points out hyper-hypocrisy, then I get to
this. We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a licensing arrangement has
been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it. So, what we have here is
someone who took the time to write all of that and not even fucking fact check
first. I also doubt Apple licensed their artwork, but you can't fucking post
shit like this before you know for sure.

~~~
WiseWeasel
You need to relax, buddy!

------
glenntzke
Upon my most recent visit, the image is no longer there. Not just hidden, but
they removed the markup and it is no longer loaded with the site. I would like
to believe that this post created enough of a cease and desist to effect the
takedown.

------
uncoder0
Here is the link to the original Post:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774416>

------
tocomment
Has anything come of this? Has Apple been notified?

~~~
sukhbir
The last paragraph mentions this: "We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a
licensing arrangement has been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it.".

------
shtylman
The last paragraph should have been the first. Why write this piece on
"stealing" and infringement when you don't even know the facts?

------
badalyan
What about this?

<http://abc.go.com/watch>

------
coob
Icon infringement is rampant: <http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/>

------
Tmorahan
_giggles_

I love it when a plan comes together.

------
J3L2404
Cognitive dissonance. If you really think this justifies copyright violation
of software and films you need to grow up.

------
aptwebapps
Man that was a lot of words to not much purpose. The basic fact of it is funny
enough, but c'mon, this has nothing to do with SOPA.

~~~
roc
Except to point out that with SOPA, Apple could have shut down NBC's entire
domain until NBC's lawyers had jumped through the requisite hoops. And that
just about every web site on the internet would be just as vulnerable to be
shut down by such requests due accidental infringement.

~~~
aptwebapps
No they could not have. Certainly not in the later versions and, I think, not
in the earlier versions but I couldn't swear to it.

In the later versions the site in question would have to be a non-US site
(they don't need SOPA for US sites as we've seen with Megaupload) and the site
would need to operate with the intent to promote copyright infringement.

Obviously that is very broad, but I don't think anyone could stretch it to one
misappropriated jpeg in a site completely dedicated to something else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely opposed to SOPA and legislation like it, I
just don't think this is relevant.

Edit: typos

------
EGreg
Look people. We all know that SOPA sucked. Personally I called my congressman
and suggested the following amendment to SOPA:

When the dept of justice (or whoever is tasked with prosecuting these sites)
finds a site, they contact it and issue a invitation to participate in
domestic proceedings, and the invitation is good for a certain period (30 days
for example). During this time, the site can respond, realize the problem,
maybe make amends or reach a settlement. If they do not _respond_ within the
time period, then they are considered in default, and US financial
institutions, search engines etc. could be compelled block them. However, at
any time they can start legal proceedings within the US, and try to get
reinstated, until the statute of limitations runs out (a few years).

This would have introduced the proper concepts of due process (inviting them
to participate and offer them an opportunity to resolve the matter before
taking drastic measures), jurisdiction (only US financial companies would be
compelled to stop dealing with them, and possibly search engines, etc.) And
IMHO it would be a good compromise.

Finally, here is why it would work: it takes a while from a site to grow from
an insignificant pirate hub (where people can download movies, etc.) to
something that lots of people in the US know. Remember, the problem is only
that US citizens are downloading pirated US movies & shows (which cost a lot
to make) from abroad. Once lots of people in the US know how to get to it
using domain X or method X, then the entertainment industry can take notice.
By that time, the site has been operating for a while (probably over a year).
What is another 30 days at this point. The due process should take place. The
entertainment industry is presumably going after big fish, not fly by night
file hosters. So there is no reason to shoot first and ask questions later.

I am probably going to get downvoted because I am talking about SOPA and
saying it could work using some sort of compromise. But I try to be open
minded. Those who know me know I criticize copyright, but I don't think our
society is ready for a completely wikipedia-like approach to art. I have
thought about the issue and in practical terms, copyright is actually quite
useful as it enforces copyleft. And in fact, using copyright and copyleft, we
have a competition of content creation by open groups and by proprietary
interests. Which is good for society. Patents in software, on the other hand,
should be abolished :)

------
JamisonM
Is that not just a piece of generic clip art that both companies could have
licensed from the same source?

The whole article seems like a lot of conjecture about something only vaguely
related to SOPA in order to publish a story about SOPA.

------
darksaga
I think its important to note, even if this was some contracted company who
put up the site, you would think designers would either know better, or at
least have the skills to create something similar. I'm by no means a whiz with
Illustrator, but I bet I could whip something up in a few hours that's similar
without infringing on Apple's copyrights.

I mean hell, all you have to do is google "blueprint icon tutorial" and you
get over a million hits. There is absolutely no excuse for someone doing this
with such a vast amount of resources at their disposal.

------
trotsky
So if I dug through a bunch of environmental activists' trash and found a
stray recyclable would that be an indictment of mandatory recycling laws? The
only thing thing interesting about this article is how easy it is to use SOPA
as cheap link bait.

~~~
dubya
If the same activists were advocating laws allowing them to go through other
people's garbage looking for recyclables, with disproportionate fines or the
suspension of all municipal services as the penalty for violation, then yes.

~~~
trotsky
Is anyone under the impression that if SOPA had passed this example would have
lead to Apple pursuing an infringement action under it against NBC Universal,
who happens to be a big Apple partner, over the misappropriation of an icon?
There are plenty of very good arguments against SOPA and PIPA - it's easy to
find them, they were/are bad laws. But is a single example of a non-willful
violation that they'll be happy to remedy one of them? Not really.

~~~
dubya
Definitely, Apple would not go after NBC for this, nor should they. But I'm
incredibly uncomfortable with laws that are this open to abuse, even with the
assurance that those laws are absolutely necessary and will only be used
against the worst violators. Think of the DMCA, RICO laws, eminent domain.

~~~
trotsky
I agree - I think no matter the intent wide open laws like these are ripe for
abuse. My only point here was that nextweb was just leveraging people's
dislike of SOPA to get pageviews on something that is clearly a non-issue. If
you want people to behave like adults (and pass adult laws) it makes sense to
keep the discourse at that level.

~~~
dubya
I'm sure we agree on the law and even on when and against whom it would be
enforced. I'm not sure you would agree that there's value in pointing out to
the companies advocating for a law which of their actions would technically
fall outside the provisions of that law. And realistically, the value is
probably only cathartic.

