Airsoft Atlanta and Brand Labs ripped off by Daniel Wood Design?
January 13th, 2010 by Brand Labs
So, if you spend any time in the design/illustration profession, you’re likely to get ripped off. It’s an unfortunate fact of life. However, it’s pretty rare that it happens almost immediately and completely unashamedly, yet that’s what just happened to us here at Brand Labs.
Back on November 24, we posted about the launch of our newly-designed site for Airsoft Atlanta. We took a great deal of pride in that design, not only because it was so flipping badass, but because the client LOVED it. Well, by a freaky coincidence, the designer who created that site happened to be searching “Volusion web design” when he came across the site for The Crimson Hill. Now we’re no plagiarism scientists, so let’s look at this together and see if we all come to the same conclusion (our design is on the left):
Let’s see… nonsensical mechanical header and footer connected by some sort of fictional belt drive? Check. Bullet-hole-ridden cement background? Check. (Though it must be noted that ours is seamless, whereas theirs is not.) Nearly identical hero image? Check. Nearly identical left nav exhaust fan? Check. Central, featured product area presented as on-screen images (complete with horizontal “monitor” lines)? Check. Extremely similar display fonts? Check. Hosted on Volusion? Check.
Now, we’ll give Daniel Wood the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was following direct orders from the client. After all, we’ve all had clients who point to a site and say, “I want that.” On the other hand, an ethical designer will do everything in their power to steer the client in a more original direction; trying to glean the elements that they truly respond to and then including those elements in the final design in a new way. It’s a constant battle, but it’s one that’s worth fighting. But, now that this has happened, we need to alert the client that they’ve been ripped off and that there’s very little we can do about it. We’re not exactly sure why anyone would want to be the cause of that sort of thing. Isn’t it always better just to come up with your own stuff? So much less drama…
UPDATE: I see in the comments that there are some non-believers and I understand their point, there’s plenty of this sort of thing to be had out there on the interwebs, but here’s the hook: The Crimson Hill basically confessed yesterday in a series of emails between them and one of our employees. It turns out that Crimson Hill approached us for a quote (which I didn’t know at the time of the post) and our sales guy showed him the Airsoft site as an example. He didn’t like our price so he went to a cheaper designer and (for all intents and purposes) told him to reproduce the Airsoft site. Regardless of how pervasive this style of design may be, the fact is that ours was built entirely from the ground up and theirs was built to ape ours.
UPDATED UPDATE: So, we’ve now been in touch with the owner of The Crimson Hill, and the fact is that he seems like a pretty nice guy. True, he came to us for a bid. True, he showed Airsoft Atlanta to the designer he eventually chose. True, it shares some obvious similarities with his final site design… however, he’s made it clear to us that his intentions were not evil and he’s currently taking steps to alter the more obviously similar elements. This may now be the closest thing to justice that a designer can hope for in such a case and we’d certainly rather make friends than enemies, so thank you Josh. We hope to cross paths again under more pleasant circumstances.
(141 votes, average: 1.80 out of 5)
Loading ...
I heard that if your not in the same industries, it’s free game! Hooray!
I spelled you’re wrong. FAIL
Well at least airsoft still looks way better!
OK
Mmmnope. It looks different enough to me. You can’t copyright an idea and that’s all that seems to have been taken from your design. I see no evidence of lifted graphics, text, code… no plagiarism of any kind, really.
I know artists hate hearing this, but imitation is the highest form of flattery. Your design is great and theirs… not as great, but almost certainly inspired by yours. Because it’s such a good design, I’m sure your client will understand that other companies will desire–and pay for–similar designs. Eerily similar designs, at that. But if all they take from you is the idea, I’m afraid they aren’t doing anything but good business.
Valid point Lillian.
The biggest thing I take away from this discussion is quality.
Looking at both pieces, its asks a serious question “How would you want your business represented?”
1.) With innovation, expertise, and a sense of professionalism?
or
2.) Second generation, average, questionable?
This is art, and it’s the face of someones business, are you really making a smart investment when you skimp on design?
Well at least airsoft still looks way better!
Not so much a rip as it seems to just be tacky design sense. There’s a million and one websites that look just like this.
website + weapons related = rivets, gears, bullet holes and metal
it’s not exactly rocket science…
pfft,
Your statement is out of context. You’re describing a genre but the original poster isn’t generalizing, he is referencing design nuances… specific ones.
I suggest actually reading the post next time.
Except the background and the metal-look (that you can find on about 2 billion websites) I don’t think this is the same.
No one pattented the left sidebar nor the machanical design.
Sorry
Not a rip in my book; this is pretty predictable design for “badass” products like guns
Here’s an update for the naysayers: Crimson Hill admitted it. It turns out that we quoted out the job for him (which I didn’t know at the time of the post), showing him the Airsoft site as an example. He didn’t like our prices, so he went to Daniel Wood and told him (in effect) to copy Airsoft. He believes that it’s “different enough” which I’m sure is the instruction he gave.
For those who say that this is a well-worn theme, it pays to bear in mind that not only do we work for hire, but we do so at the customer’s whim. He asked for videogame/steampunk/combat and that’s what we delivered… and he was thrilled.
Brand Labs –
I don’t think it’s a question of whether they did rip it or not, but that they did so with enough variation that it would never hold up in court as a copyright issue. You said yourself “an ethical designer will do everything in their power to steer the client in a more original direction; trying to glean the elements that they truly respond to and then including those elements in the final design in a new way.”
As far as I see, that’s exactly what that designer did here. They probably used bits from other sites too. As others have said, this genre of site is very, very widespread.
Looks completely different in my opinion and no laws infringed, that’s for sure. Aren’t people in America still allowed to shop around? I too looked at the 2 sites and saw some differences with one having a slide-show and scrolling testimonials. I can see all opinions here, but seems like more of a business problem with competing design firms than anything else. I see some similarities as well, but then again they are both “Gun-type” sites. Just my $0.02
It looks as if both sites are original designs. I’m sure nobody is going to find those kind of graphics just lying around on the web… they were created. Airsoft design gets the bragging rights of being first, I get that.
But then again, as KUMO said, they’re both different. I also see other differences even than what WHATCHA said. The second site has some riveting on the nav menu(actually pretty cool) and animation.
This forum is ridiculous and it’s comical I found it. Not a designer, but I know from programming that Volusion is a huge e-commerce platform with a lot of e-commerce customers. It seems the poster is a bit pissed there is another kid in the sandbox.
Also seems like the drama (referenced in the original post) is being highly driven by two different blog-type settings now… not so much everyone else involved from what it looks like.
Both look indy from each other…
C-ya
I completely agree with prgmrawol above. Why is this even being discussed? The 2 sites are clearly different. Shouldn’t Brand Labs be servicing their customers instead of spending all day blogging about this? The poster sounds like a whinning kid that didn’t get his way. Get over it Brand Labs!
i tot it was nice, lets be friends not enemies. You dun hear that in the world nowadays anymore.
Ahem. The expression “sincerest form of flattery” was coined as a joke, did you know?
both are generic looking and look like they came from a template company. not a rip, just 2 really generic designs that happen to look equally generic.
@Chris, Generic? If these are generic then ALL websites are generic looking. Nike, Target, everything.
They’re both hideously generic. And both shit.
I believe your anger comes from being bested at your own game. The design by Daniel Wood is a HUGE improvement and I believe they gave the client a quality product under the circumstances.
What’s wrong with the original? It completely ignores the way people actually read websites. People read from top to bottom right to left. Your site demonstrates ZERO understanding of that.
1. The title is in the center with some small links on the top left. What’s more important to your visitor? They shouldn’t have to scan to find the name of the site. It should be the very first thing they see. It should be at the top left.
2. The bright yellow with black striping is way too distracting. I can barely take time to look at the content because my eye is being dragged away to this loud pattern that adds nothing to the design. In fact, the header gets lost in the pattern because it is gray JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE SITE. Invert the color scheme. Make the Title yellow and the pattern a gray/dark gray stripe.
3. Don’t put bullet holes in the left margin. That is about the worst place you could put something that has no value. Think back to how the user will look at the site. Do you want the bullet holes to be one of the first things the user sees as they scan through the site? Do you want it to be MORE VISIBLE THAN THE PRODUCTS BEING SOLD?
4. The gradient background that fades to white towards the bottom is really tragic. Do you see how washed out the bottom of the site is? It’s compounded by the fact that the bottom border has that same annoying yellow pattern. It’s like a magnet in the wasteland of white empty space.
The “copy” really improves on every one of these points so kudos to them for thinking about the design instead of simply copying it. Still ugly given the source material, but I suspect they know what they are doing.
The only problem with your “original” design is that it’s a rip of the Mechwarrior RPG game book layout design – right down to the header and footer designs…
WOW….this is no where near a direct copy. Get over yourself.
Avimort is right. The original is where the real crime is at. He copied the Mechwarrior game book. What a douche. Seriously this needs to be taken off this site. Brand Labs are the ones who are the copiers.