

Mozilla rips off Metalab, issue apparently resolved within the hour - dzlobin
http://blog.metalabdesign.com/post/437932602/metalab-goes-open-source

======
spoondan
I think this is a gross, misleading, and irresponsible reaction. The cited
image is from the Mozilla wiki under a section entitled "Current mock-ups and
screenshots". I cannot find any evidence that Mozilla has released a site or
application with this UI. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the
design shown is "new", that it is in any way intended to be the final design,
or that the stolen graphical elements will actually be used in the real
product.

~~~
wooster
Really? Because it looks to me like an employee of Mozilla claimed copyright
on images plagiarized from another's work. The Mozilla wiki has a very clear
copyright policy:

"All contributions to MozillaWiki are under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA) version 3.0 or any later version."

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/MozillaWiki:About>

Which I would expect Mozilla employees to know about and abide by.

As full disclosure, I've hired Metalab in the past.

~~~
boucher
Yeah, but the appropriate reaction was to talk to anyone at Mozilla before
writing a public blog post in a fairly transparent attempt to get some free
PR.

~~~
patio11
Ahem, I appreciate that Mozilla is on the side of the angels and all, but
after you create one of the most notable pieces of software in the world, take
eight figures a year from Google for advertising, and zealously protect your
own trademarks, you cease to get my "Oh, small company doesn't understand how
IP works -- well, time for a quick private chitchat to rectify their
understanding" latitude with regards to infringement.

P.S. Contrast this with how we collectively reacted when a Microsoft partner
ripped off Plurk's design.

~~~
enneff
Apples and oranges. Plurk's entire UI, code and all, was stolen and launched
as a competing product.

~~~
Zev
And if nothing was said, do you think that Mozilla would have made their own
design up or simply continued with the stolen one?

~~~
chaosprophet
Apparently, they had already ditched the design.
[[http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/09/metalab-accuses-mozilla-
of-...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/09/metalab-accuses-mozilla-of-
plagiarizing-its-design/)]

~~~
Zev
It could very well be that I'm tired and missing something, but I don't see
where it says that in the TC article. And I don't personally run Firefox, so I
can't go through the pages of designs on the page linked to in the TC quote to
verify this myself.

~~~
chaosprophet
FTA (emphasis mine): Mozilla is now aware of a post by MetaLab that shows a
Mozilla developer copying prior design work. The mockups they cite were an
early proof of concept created by cut-and-paste, _never final designs_.
Mozilla respects the hard work of all designers and at no time meant to
plagiarize original content. The in-progress designs for the Jetpack SDK’s IDE
are available here and following initial sign-off on the proof of concept, the
IDE was developed entirely independent of MetaLabs’ work.

------
brandon272
Andrew Wilkinson is constantly freaking out over design similarities and rip
offs. In some cases, the designs are not even close. In others, such as in
this case, they are very close. In either case, I don't think that these
constant public tantrums are ever effective at accomplishing anything
positive.

What Andrew _did_ accomplish in this case was that he ensured that Mozilla
will likely not become one of their clients, even though it was clear Mozilla
considered them to be a good firm, and would have possibly sent them work in
the future.

The professional thing to do in this scenario would be to contact the parties
involved to see what is going on and discuss the issue, including any concerns
you have, directly and like adults. It's wrong to assume you understand
someone's motivations when you haven't given them an opportunity to explain
themselves, especially when you go on to type up a scathing blog post about
them _in which you publish private e-mail correspondence_ between yourself and
the party that you are criticizing.

~~~
antidaily
Weird assumption - that Mozilla liked them and would have given them work in
the future if he would not have complained. Though, I agree that it probably
could have been resolved out of the public's view.

~~~
brandon272
Why is it a weird assumption? Their blog post shows an e-mail from Daniel (the
person they are lambasting) that says " _Your company has first-class
UI/graphics design chops and I will certainly keep MetaLab in mind when
bidding out future projects that require such services._ "

~~~
lmkg
Don't take that at face value. It's standard corp-speak boilerplate. All it
means is Mozilla wasn't burning bridges with the rejection.

~~~
brandon272
Boilerplate perhaps, but generally if a company is willing to rip off your
designs for use in their own internal concepts, I would take that as a sign
that they like what you are doing.

~~~
jeremymcanally
Why wouldn't they just rip it again? :)

I mean, I think this whole thing is stupid, but if they've shown they'll do it
once, what's to stop from doing it again? Why would they hire you after that?

The whole scenario is just weird.

------
brandon272
This is now on TechCrunch.

This should be a wake up call to MetaLab's prospective clients and partners:
If you do something that MetaLab doesn't like, they won't call you to talk
about it. They will first hit Twitter and their blog and try to shame you in
the most public way they possibly can, ensuring that the message is broadcast
to millions.

~~~
lotharbot
"something MetaLab doesn't like"? That's a really soft euphemism to use in
place of "use their images and design on mockups of a product after rejecting
their bid to do images and design for that product".

Granted, MetaLab could have chosen a better approach. But don't act like they
don't have darn good reason to be upset.

~~~
brandon272
My argument isn't that they shouldn't be upset. It's that they have handled a
situation so poorly that their actions and consequences are worse than what
they are originally critiquing!

Mozilla made a mistake by posting images that they shouldn't have posted. If
they wanted that design, they should have coughed up the cash and gotten
MetaLab to do the work. But publicly shaming a company to try and damage their
reputation, including posting private e-mails for the world to see without so
much as a courtesy call to the person you have a problem before you distribute
a message which may reach hundreds of thousands, or millions of eyes is, at
best, horribly short sighted and extraordinarily unprofessional.

~~~
rimantas
So posting someones work you did not pay for in public and using for promotion
is ok, complaining about that in public is not ok? Strange world, indeed.

~~~
ubernostrum
If the claims you were making were true you might have a point. Unfortunately,
it does not appear the facts are on your side.

~~~
anthonyb
How are his claims not true? Mozilla posted Metalab's designs on a public wiki
page and used them for promotion - after rejecting the design (ie. not paying
for it). If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. That's pretty
straightforward ethical behaviour, I would've thought.

~~~
brandon272
MetaLab did no work for Mozilla beyond giving them an estimate for work to be
completed. The concept drawing the Mozilla mistakenly posted on their wiki
was, by all accounts, a concept that was produced internally at Mozilla.

~~~
Semiapies
An estimate that Mozilla _rejected_ before using the design they were
unwilling to pay for.

EDIT: If I were MetaLabs, I would not be horrified at the prospect that people
perfectly willing to rip me off would be reluctant to hire me.

------
cscotta
See here for four more comps based on the same layout:
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Jetpack/FlightDeck>

This is pretty shameful. These were all posted by wiki user Dandonkulous
(Daniel Buechner; @dandonkulous), who was Metalab's contact in the article.
These may just be comps rather than a full product, but regardless, they
demonstrate that significant effort has gone into producing a nearly identical
copy of the original Metalab design. That's disappointing; if these
allegations are correct, I'm very disappointed in Daniel and those involved at
Mozilla in creating this product.

 _Update:_ Mozilla has removed the screenshots. Here are three of them:

\- <http://u.phoreo.com/gn.png>

\- <http://u.phoreo.com/1x.png>

\- <http://u.phoreo.com/gq.png>

~~~
lotharbot
Within minutes of your post, the screenshots were removed from that page.
Looks like someone on the mozilla end is watching.

You can still see a screenshot at
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:FlightDeck_Editor.png> as of this posting.

To the guys at mozilla: do the right thing. It's too late to bury this.

~~~
DEinspanjer
Aside from the rights and wrongs done by both companies, ^^ _this_ sentiment
is the one that really makes me mad. Mozilla gets notification from a company
that they screwed up. Mozilla begins removing the objectionable material
without delay. Mozilla gets flamed for "burying evidence".

I imagine this flame can't hurt as bad as the alternate one where people say
Mozilla is just flaunting their wrongdoing by not taking the material down,
but sheesh!

~~~
lotharbot
The issue had already gone public. The guys at Mozilla had a choice. They
could either remove the material and play dumb, or remove the material,
acknowledge the issue, and work with MetaLabs to find a satisfactory solution.
At issue was not "removing the objectionable material", but "removing the
material without any acknowledgment".

I find it surprising you would consider my call to Mozilla to "do the right
thing" a flame. There was no anger or malice in anything I said, just a desire
for someone at Mozilla to say "we are working with MetaLabs to sort out this
issue". (I say all of this as a supporter of Mozilla, and a long-time user of
the Mosaic-Netscape-Firefox browsers.)

~~~
brandon272
How do you know with any degree of certainty that Mozilla was "playing dumb"
and not just taking down the material as a pre-emptive measure to try and fix
the situation? Do you work at MetaLab or Mozilla?

~~~
lotharbot
I did not say that they were playing dumb.

I said they had a choice, and urged them to make the right one.

Until MetaLabs finally communicated what had happened, the scenario was
ambiguous. IMO, Mozilla could have eliminated the ambiguity much sooner simply
by saying "we are working with MetaLabs to resolve this."

------
jkincaid
Here's the comment Mozilla gave to me:

"Mozilla is now aware of a post by MetaLabs that shows a Mozilla developer
copying prior design work. The mockups they cite were an early proof of
concept created by cut-and-paste, never final designs. Mozilla respects the
hard work of all designers and at no time meant to plagiarize original
content. The in-progress designs for the Jetpack SDK’s IDE are available here
(<http://flightdeck.zalewa.info/>) and following initial sign-off on the proof
of concept, the IDE was developed entirely independent of MetaLabs’ work."

------
whalesalad
Hmm from the looks of it it doesn't seem like they're actually using the
design anywhere? As far as I can tell the image from Metalab has been placed
on a public wiki.

------
brandon272
Did MetaLab design the Campaign Monitor website?

<http://www.getballpark.com/> <http://www.campaignmonitor.com/>

~~~
ispivey
They look awfully similar, but no; Campaign Monitor's site was designed by
design firm 31Three before Ballpark was launched:

<http://www.31three.com/portfolio/#campaign_monitor>

[http://newism.com.au/blog/post/90/building-campaign-
monitor-...](http://newism.com.au/blog/post/90/building-campaign-monitor-
part-3-design-process/)

~~~
brandon272
Maybe this 31Three company needs to put up a blog post accusing MetaLab of
"ripping off" their design. They could even put up comparative screenshots to
show the obvious similarities, and could encourage their followers to contact
MetaLab to register their displeasure. The directors of the company could also
spend the day on Twitter publicly forwarding links to the blog post to their
colleagues.

Seems like a great way to get some free publicity!

------
taitems
When I first saw the tweet I thought it was just a backyard/bedroom operator
doing it for free. It is open source after all. But when I read that they
tendered for the project and were turned down, that makes me really angry.

I hope they reach an agreement where Metalab is reimbursed for the entire
amount of their initial quote.

~~~
midnightmonster
> an agreement where Metalab is reimbursed for the entire amount of their
> initial quote.

Why on earth would/should that happen over a few mockups? It's not that
Mozilla asked Metalab to do a bunch of work, claimed it sucked so they
wouldn't pay, and then used it anyway. No: Moz decided not to hire Metalab,
and someone ripped off some existing work of Metalab's for some mockups.

Now, I think that was an inexcusable thing to do on the part of whoever did
it, but even if it was actual Mozilla staff, I just don't see why Mozilla
ought to pay Metalab for not working nor hire them unless they happened to be
the second choice. (Because the first choice--assuming they were responsible--
has got to go.)

~~~
taitems
Because the person responsible (not knowing who that is just yet) directly
stole their images, violated their copyright and their intellectual property.
Instead of tying things up with lawyers, mediation and strongly worded
letters, why not simply pay what was quoted for, and forget it ever happened?

~~~
brandon272
When you talk about lawyers and strongly worded letters, are you talking about
MetaLab suing Mozilla over copyright issues, or are you talking about Mozilla
suing MetaLab for trying to damage their reputation? And what about Daniel?
Doesn't he have a reasonable expectation to privacy? I'm assuming he didn't
give MetaLab permission to post his private correspondence with them on their
website.

~~~
dasht
Yes.

(By which I mean that a settlement offer along the lines suggested is part of
how to avoid the kind of tangle you describe.)

------
ynniv
This is probably the mock-up that almost landed you the gig in the first
place, but obviously that isn't going to happen now.

And you've undoubtedly convinced a few additional CEO's that absolute secrecy
is the best way to operate. Let people participate in works-in-progress and
someone is sure to get their knickers in a twist. This is also why more
companies don't open source their tools: they expose themselves to patent
infringement suits when anyone can read the code.

The proper recourse would be to email someone, or wait to see if your designs
showed up in the final product. I mean, you aren't going to forget to check
the theme on the latest version of Firefox.

~~~
Semiapies
_"but obviously that isn't going to happen now."_

It hadn't happened. The deal was off.

Why do people try to convince designers that they should accept being ripped
off in hopes that some of the people ripping them off will throw them a bone?

~~~
ynniv
_Why do people try to convince designers that they should accept being ripped
off in hopes that some of the people ripping them off will throw them a bone?_

You are talking about an internal mockup, not a released product. There is no
justification to say that anyone was "ripped off", nor would Mozilla be
"throwing them a bone" if they were to re-approach later after re-allocating
more funding. My comment that this will not happen now is not to suggest that
MetaLab should have been secretly hoping for a deal to happen anyway. However,
their untempered response to the situation portray's them as unprofessional. I
would not reconsider working with a firm who acted this way.

~~~
Semiapies
_"You are talking about an internal mockup, not a released product."_

I am talking about design work they used for promotional videos and
screenshots. It matters in absolutely no way that upon this becoming public,
Mozilla announced that they do not intend to use the design for production
software.

 _"I would not reconsider working with a firm who acted this way."_

I would not want a _client_ who's hesitant to hire me on the grounds that they
might not get away with ripping me off.

------
daleharvey
azaaza just posted to twitter

"Just got off the phone with MetaLab, glad to have quickly reached an
understanding. Expect to hear from them soon."

<http://twitter.com/azaaza/status/10253138540>

seems a shame for metalab to jump so quickly on mozilla in that way, mozilla
havent been the golden boy in the geek crowd for a while but their labs are
putting out some awesome stuff.

~~~
Semiapies
Seems more of a shame for Mozilla to have done this, even by simple
negligence.

------
cristianl
I'm late to this, and I wish I could avoid the gross generalization, but it
seems that Hacker News has a bias against Metalab.

The comments on You're Killing Me, Zappos
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=812729>) could be boiled down to "You
can design a shiny mockup, but you can't make a successful, money-making
website."

------
guelo
<http://twitter.com/azaaza/status/10253138540>

Aza: Just got off the phone with MetaLab, glad to have quickly reached an
understanding. Expect to hear from them soon.

------
scotty79
Apparently Mozilla liked Metalab design so much that it was getting ready to
actually use it in their product. Price happened to be too steep so they
passed.

What Metalab should do is that it should contact Mozilla and tell them: "Look
guys, we saw that you put much effort and actually introduced our design into
development version of your product. We think it really looks great so maybe
you should reconsider and purchase this design from us. We can give you
discount on this."

Instead they went "This is mine. You have not paid to touch it. Don't touch
it! Hey, everybody!!! They are touching it but they didn't pay me!"

~~~
Semiapies
Yeah, I know that price tag says $199.99, but since you walked out of the
store with it stuffed in your pocket, I know you like it - how's $180? $160?

Hey, don't walk so fast, I'm trying to negotiate with you. Wait up!

~~~
scotty79
From what I see is more like:

Why do you touch my apples? You said you didn't want to buy them for 10$! Stop
touching my apples! Thief! Thief! Make him stop touching my apples!

Or maybe fitting the dress you said you didn't want to buy would be a better
metaphore.

~~~
Semiapies
Except, of course, I already took the apples home.

 _Yesterday._

(Or in Mozilla's case, three months prior.)

I get that folks love Mozilla and don't like MetaLab, but the contortions
people are going through to try to paint them as wrong or stupid on this issue
are headache-inducing. I wish people would just honestly say, "I don't care
that Mozilla ripped off MetaLab."

~~~
scotty79
I can't force myself to think about the design as an item that comes in a
opaque box with price tag. You have to try if design fits. If it fits you keep
it, pay for it and everyone is happy. If not, you don't pay for it and toss it
away what apparently Mozilla did. Same thing you do with photographs. You try
many of them, but buy only the ones that go into final design. I wonder if
MetaLab pays for all the photos that go through its designers hands.

There are some screenshot that prove that at some point that design was tried
to be fitted. That's all. Not that Mozilla took design home and unboxed it
without paying.

~~~
Semiapies
_"If not, you don't pay for it and toss it away what apparently Mozilla did."_

They did _not_ toss it away, which is the whole point. They used it in public
material.

That you can't "force" yourself to think in terms of accepting or declining
agreements is an issue you might look into; I have nothing further to add.

------
ErrantX
Im interested in what Mozilla mean by: _"the mockups they cite were an early
proof of concept created by cut-and-paste, never final designs."_ (mentioned
elsewhere in this thread).

According to the wiki history [1] they were added as late as 12th/16th Feb
2010. Admitedly posted as _Latest Mock-ups and Screenshots_ but there are no
other designs or alternatives proposed.

It's easy enough to call these concepts now: but without a complaint from
metalab (which was handled poorly) would they have made it further towards
"final design"?

1\.
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Labs/Jetpack/Flight...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Labs/Jetpack/FlightDeck&diff=202663&oldid=201751)

------
dirtbox
For Mozilla's sake, I hope it was the design team they hired that did the
knockoff rather than an inhouse designer. Although it's probably too early to
jump to conclusions at this point.

~~~
anthonyb
If they did, how would they know which site to knock off? Unless it's either a
bizarre coincidence, the Mozilla guys would have had to pass the mockups on to
them. And they still had to upload them afterwards!

~~~
dirtbox
I'm sure there were more than a few designers who tendered an offer.

~~~
anthonyb
But a strange coincidence that they just happened to pick Metalab's design to
rip off, no?

------
natfriedman
Can anyone deblur that invoice? It looks like at least $20k for 47 hours of
work.

~~~
bbatsell
Er, it's blatantly clear that there is only one number in front of the comma
separating the thousands. It looks like $6,000 to me.

~~~
timdorr
$6580 / 47 = $140. Sounds about right.

------
Semiapies
I remain amused/disturbed that so many people here sincerely believe that if
they wrong someone else, the wronged party _owes_ them a back-channel
discussion to resolve things cheaply and quietly.

If you make promo material with someone's designs (after declining to pay),
you should be very grateful if that person's willing to work it out without
involving lawyers. A public apology and a promise to do things better is far
cheaper than an attorney's billable hours.

If that person is kind enough to do all this quietly, then be _twice_ as
grateful for that person's kindness.

Mozilla and Aza Raskin have understood this better than their defenders - when
you're in the hole, stop digging. No excuses, no defensiveness. Fix your
mistake, acknowledge that you were wrong, explain your error if it was
innocent, and apologize.

------
rksprst
Anyone know what software they to make/send their estimates? As well as the
CRM they use? The message screenshot I take is from some CRM tool?

Edit: Looks to be ballpark for both, can anyone confirm?

~~~
mikeyur
Both of the shots (estimate + 'CRM' - really just a comments section) are from
Ballpark.

------
micrypt
Jetpack Mockup Clarification & Apology to MetaLab

[http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/03/10/jetpack-mockup-
cla...](http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/03/10/jetpack-mockup-
clarification-apology-to-metalab/)

------
csspixel
Their homepage now redirects to <http://blog.metalabdesign.com> and rest of
the nav links are not working anymore. Good job, make your website completely
unusable for a bit of PR.

~~~
grinich
They were TechCrunch'd and threw a static page up on S3.

------
petemerrill
Wow. This is disgusting. Even I create my own content and o own a small social
network (2780 members). Unnacceptable. I'm speechless.
<http://www.thirdie.com>

------
pixeltodesign
MetaLabs propose a design for Mozilla. Mozilla steals design. NOT COOL
especially since you have the resources to afford something like this.

------
dzlobin
edited the title, kudos to the Mozilla team for their quick work in getting
the story straight

------
kylebragger
Wait, was this an actual site that was live, or just some screenshots/mockups?

~~~
nolanbrown23
It was just a mockup.

~~~
dzlobin
"The material was used in both the launch announcement and video for the
product, but the design has since been changed. Mozilla have apologised. A
follow-up post from MetaLab is promised for tomorrow."

------
bonaldi
What app are they using to read their mail? It's purty

~~~
mikeyur
I believe what you're referring to is the image of the estimate. That's a
screenshot of MetaLab's invoicing app, Ballpark.

<http://getballpark.com/>

------
nnash
I love Metalabs site design as much as the next guy, but I don't think that
this is what Picasso meant when he said - "Good artists copy, great artists
steal."

Shame on you Mozilla, shame on you.

------
anupj
good artists copy, great artists steal :)

------
aresant
"That said, it was used in their launch video as well as their blog post
announcing the product."

If true, I think that's pretty conclusive that this goes beyond Mozilla
"mocking up" a new design and they've got some egg on their face.

------
matwood
The Metalab guys should be happy about all the free press they are now
getting.

Not saying that Metalab did this, but I wonder if there is a PR lesson here.
Anonymously upload your companies design to a popular FOSS project and then
pretend to be all dejected when you 'find out'. Air your grievance publicly
and boom, instant PR!

------
flexeble
This situation smears the good name that Mozilla has built in spreading the
values of open source software. It is shameful for Mozilla to have put itself
as a pilferer of design. Take it down and hire them to do the work.

------
jrockway
There's a reason why everyone calls the Mozilla Foundation the "MoFo". This is
the same entity that told Debian they couldn't patch security problems and
still call the browser Firefox. Let's just say... a clue is not something the
MoFo has.

------
mimosin8
I can't believe Mozilla would do such a thing, but as a designer I am on
Metalab's side, it is unacceptable that any company would do such a thing.
Mozilla needs to issue an apology and pay for the design if the intend to
clear in any way what they have done. It is also sad that a talented team like
mozilla's couldn't come up with an idea of their own or at least pay for it.
On another note, is there a way for Metalab to take legal actions towards
Mozilla?

