37Signals jumps the shark

Submitted by Mike Rothman on Thu, 2007-03-01 10:04.
::

I've always been a big fan of 37Signals. They used their blog to magnify their unique take on design and have built a good business providing applications that are focused and easy to use. But the key word now is "business."

I am all too aware of copyright law and the need to enforce the uniqueness of specific design elements that can be deemed proprietary. But I believe 37Signals stepped over the line of practicality when basically sending a cease and desist order to Mike Murray because he was a bit too honest relative to his admiration for 37Signals design.

Mike's account of the situation is here.

I guess it would be nice for 37S to eat their own dog food a bit. They talk about being open and this new generation type of company. Small, focused, effective. But in reality, they are like everyone else - very corporate. They have employees and bills to pay and investors to keep happy. So they felt compelled to come down on a sole proprietor that was just sending them some props (as you are supposed to do in Web 2.0).

The sad thing is that Mike never needed to mention where he got the inspiration for his design. He would have gotten "away" with it. You don't think 99% of design is inspired by something else? Of course it is. The look and feel of 37Signals' Getting Real page is neither unique nor novel and I suspect unless Mike literally copied their CSS layout, they wouldn't be able to enforce much of anything.

But the statement was made. Jason Fried runs a business, not a movement. I guess it was bound to happen, since success makes company's act differently. It's still disappointing. Really disappointing.

And no, I'm not linking to 37Signals site anymore. They'll probably sue me for self-publishing my book, since they inspired that go to market model.

 

37 Signals
Submitted by Tim Wagner (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-01 10:17.

Mike,

I'm glad to see someone else was offended by the fact that 37signals came down on Mike Murray. A guy try's to be honest and give credit and they tell him to take the site down in 72 hours. I can say, I will not be looking at 37signals for anything they do, regardless if it's good or not. Mike is in no way effecting there business by using a layout similar to there's. Let's get real guys.

By the way, how do we know the layout, not the content, is actually made by 37signals? Can they prove it? I have seen many sites that use something similar.

 

Tim

Agreed
Submitted by SamVR (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-01 16:44.
Absolutely agreed. 37Signals obviously do not understand the power of networking. It only could have helped them gain exposure to new people (I had never heard of them until Mike posted about them and linked to them). Needless to say, no need for me to go back to their site now. They quite possibly offended a number of folks in an industry they might not yet have touched. In any event, they just don't get it.
I'll obviously disagree
Submitted by Jason Fried (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-01 18:50.
As I mentioned in a comment that Mike deleted, it's not a matter of giving someone else credit, it's a matter of taking without permission. That's the key issue here.

I can't take the layout of USA Today, create my own newspaper with the same layout (or barely adjusted layout), say "Thanks to USA Today for the design," and be on my way. Just because you give credit to someone doesn't give you the right to take something from that someone.

We've all been inspired by someone else's work. Inspiration is a big part of design. But taking that work, replacing the words, and calling it your own (with credit for the original or not) isn't cool or legal.

Just as you can't take someone's words, change them around a little, and call them your own (that's plagerism), the same goes for design. You can't take someone's designs (their visual vocabulary), make a few minor changes, and call it your own.

And this particular case went far beyond surface inspiration. Mike actually took our CSS file (the file that serves as the basis for our design, layout, and concept) and used it on his site. Taking someone's 500-line CSS file, changing the fonts in a few places, and renaming it is not inspiration, it's copying without permission.

Looking at someone's CSS file to learn CSS or get some ideas is one thing. Saving it to your web server, renaming it, and basing your site on it is entirely different.

We are quite generous with our sharing with the web community. We open-sourced Rails, we give our Getting Real book away for free, and we provide detailed insight into how we run our business and how we approach software, but that doesn't mean everything else is for the taking too. We happily give plenty, but what we don't give you can't take.

I hope I was clear.
Thanks for listening.
To speak to one of your points...
Submitted by Jason Fried (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-01 18:55.
"I suspect unless Mike literally copied their CSS layout"

That's exactly what he did. He copied our entire CSS file over to his site, changed a font or two, renamed it, and used it as the CSS for his layout.

If you viewed his source (he may have changed it now) you'd see there was even code labeled for Backpack in there.
Then that is wrong
Submitted by Mike Rothman on Fri, 2007-03-02 13:39.
Taking the CSS outright is wrong, and Mike addressed the issue. My point is bigger than that. Where does inspiration end and plagurism begin? To me that's the crux of the issue. I'm a business person like everyone else and I understand what's required to defend intellectual property. I guess my disappointment was in a very corporate response from a company I didn't think of as overly corporate.

You sent the equivalent of a lawyer letter, when a simple email request should have sufficed. Maybe you did that, but that's not what it seemed like.

UHm.
Submitted by SH (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-01 18:56.

"They have employees and bills to pay and investors to keep happy. So they felt compelled to come down on a sole proprietor that was just sending them some props (as you are supposed to do in Web 2.0)."

First of all, it's not "Web 2.0" to steal from other sites. Second, it's not "networking" to steal something from other sites. Third, it's not "corporate" to ask that stolen material be removed so that the thief can't take credit for or gain monetary compensation by stealing from other sites. Fourth, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, STEALING IS STEALING, "props" or not.

Stop your whining, grow up a bit, and learn from your mistakes.

37S has fanboys too
Submitted by Mike Rothman on Fri, 2007-03-02 13:41.
This is kind of interesting. I figured only Apple had beligerent fanboys (and fangirls) that cut down anyone that says anything critical about their beloved. I guess I was wrong again because this is a very fanboy-ish response.
Mike lifted the 37signals CSS file
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2007-03-02 13:16.

It's one thing to be inspired, it's another thing to copy directly.

 According to Mike's comments on his own post, he admitted to copying the CSS file directly from the 37signals site, and then tweaked it to his liking. That is stepping over the line from inspiration because he has created a derivative work of the 37signals site.

By the same logic, if I copy content from this blog, tweak it and republish it as my own, and nobody here would find fault with it?

It's about enforcement
Submitted by Mike Rothman on Fri, 2007-03-02 13:45.
People copy my shit all the time. They call it "original thinking," but it comes from me and that's fine because in my business - I can document that I was the first with an idea about security and if it becomes common knowledge and accepted practice, then I'm doing my job.

McAfee calls their blog "Security Insights." I could probably sue them, but what good would that do. I could also put up a tersely worded comment on their blog (as your beloved 37Signals did) and they would have laughed at me. I don't have a legal budget to go sue people.

That's my point. 37S has gone corporate. They are no longer an "indie band." And that's fine, good for them. Indie bands don't enforce copyrights (to any great length) because they are investing their money in "getting real" or whatever else they do to keep the lights on. 
Plagerism? Plagurism?
Submitted by Dave Vellante (not verified) on Thu, 2007-03-08 16:40.

Okay-- could it be more clear? It says it right on the site:

"All text and design is copyright ©1999-2007 37signals, LLC. All rights reserved."

It doesn't say: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" like say, Wikipedia.

Is this 'jumping the shark?' Well I guess Google, Friendster, Myspace, Digg, etc. have all jumped the shark too-- because they have similar copyright notices and I have no doubt they would defend them vigorously.

If you have a copyright on your site and someone violates it and you knowingly ignore it then you are setting a foolish precedent--even if the guy is really nice like Mike Murray.

And I thought Jason's note was very respectful, even if he can't spell 'Plagiarism'.

Notice: 37Signals, Wikipedia, Google, Friendster, Myspace and Digg are registered trademarks of their respective companies...
yes, they jumped the shark
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2007-03-10 12:51.
How does one stay in business by being an a$$hle? Fact is that gaining such a reputation does harm a business. Especially one where people contact is critical, such as selling services, training, so on. Apparently 37S was not just content with asking that the offending content be removed but had to go as far as accusing that person of being scum and worse. All in the first contact. Apparently the person who sent that message fancies himself a lawyer. It seems that 37S is not content with just leaving it alone but has to come back and keep winging about it. I find it very strange that 37S is going to all these blogs and feels compelled to post again and again about what they did. And then the posts start getting a bit nasty in tone, if not content. Most surprising is that 37S fails to realize that potential customers are reading what they write and will for decades to come. This tells me, as a business, several things: 1. That 37S is very selfish and immature, and obviously lack certain critical business skills. 2. That 37S either does not care about their business reputation or has none. 3. That 37S truly feels that what they did is indefensible, no matter what they say publicly. 4. That 37S is terrified of competition. 5. That if I do business with 37S that I should watch my back: They are telling me in all these messages that they could turn on me if I become their customer or have anything else to do with them. 6. I have better things to do than watch my back all the time so I'll look up a business I feel I can trust. Six strikes, in my book, and just one is enough for me to consider avoiding them. The best thing 37S can do now is to apologize and then shut the hell up. And then go get some business education and a business mentor. Or they can dig themselves in deeper and keep going. Right into oblivion. At this point that is much easier than trying to improve a reputation.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.