Show HN: Nuggets – Remember everything you read or learn(nuggetsapp.com)
nuggetsapp.com
Show HN: Nuggets – Remember everything you read or learn
http://www.nuggetsapp.com
11 comments
Any relation to https://www.rooms.me/
or are you just lifting their design without credit?
You forget to take out links to their site. (bottom right)
Pretty dumb move, considering rooms.me is by FB, and there's bound to a be FB people looking on HN.
You forget to take out links to their site. (bottom right)
Pretty dumb move, considering rooms.me is by FB, and there's bound to a be FB people looking on HN.
This looks completely lifted. http://imgur.com/a/Jqmrq
They still didn't take them out. The links are just commented out in the code now.
In fairness, "nobody gives a shit how the sausage is made."
If this product adds value to people's lives, why does it matter if they lifted the website design?
If this product adds value to people's lives, why does it matter if they lifted the website design?
Because it's illegal.
Copying licensed code, like this: (left rooms.me, right nuggetsapp) https://www.diffchecker.com/gmudwop7
is I L L E G A L, and I M M O R A L. Letting it slide is not okay!
Copying licensed code, like this: (left rooms.me, right nuggetsapp) https://www.diffchecker.com/gmudwop7
is I L L E G A L, and I M M O R A L. Letting it slide is not okay!
This sparked a debate in our office - clearly designers look to other sites for inspiration, but at what point does it actually become illegal? If the user didn't copy / paste and instead reverse-engineered the code, would it be legal? (but still immoral, of course).
IANAL (but work around a lot of them)
Even if it was just an interpretation, chances are FB would have a strong case in court. Pretty much every artistic and expressive UI/UX element from the original site has been copied and placed on the nuggets site. There's not really anything being creatively added or remixed by the nuggets creator.
If insane shit like patents on rounded app icons and the iTunes "music note" logo gets regularly brought to court and settled[1], then copying the entire L&F of a site is definitely infringing.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
Even if it was just an interpretation, chances are FB would have a strong case in court. Pretty much every artistic and expressive UI/UX element from the original site has been copied and placed on the nuggets site. There's not really anything being creatively added or remixed by the nuggets creator.
If insane shit like patents on rounded app icons and the iTunes "music note" logo gets regularly brought to court and settled[1], then copying the entire L&F of a site is definitely infringing.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
(None of this applies in this case, because the code was evidently literally copied and pasted. Let's assume it was just design inspiration. IANAL.)
This would be a question of fair use in derivative works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#The_fair_use_d...
You're balancing a couple factors here. First, there's the question of whether it's derivative at all. That requires the work be substantively new and different, which the OP probably doesn't meet. See the Batlin standard:
>However, his appeal was denied and the injunction against Snyder's copyright upheld (six members of the court voted to deny, the other three filing a dissenting opinion). Much of this decision focused on the fact that nearly all of the alterations in Snyder's version were made solely to allow the object to be more easily manufactured in plastic rather than metal, and therefore were functional, not artistic or creative... The issue was not whether or not Batlin's bank was a copy of Snyder's— it undoubtedly was— but whether or not Snyder could claim copyright protection, which the court decided he could not.
The OP really only makes changes to make it their company's product, so it's probably just copying, not deriving. But let's assume it passes that standard. We'd still need to justify fair use, which sets 3 standards: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
This is a commercial project copying another company. Won't get much sympathy here.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
>Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
This one doesn't seem to apply much here, it's more for works of 'importance.' For example, the Zapruder film's copyright was invalidated on these grounds when Time tried to enforce it. Maybe you could argue that Facebook is so iconic that its designs have become a part of the artistic zeitgeist, but probably not for some random spinoff.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
>The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.
Looks like just about all of it...
4. and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Probably some good news here. Nuggets copying the Rooms design probably doesn't hurt Facebook much. Arguably it even helps them, since we're talking about it here.
Overall, not a very good case for these guys, but I assume you're thinking about more ambiguous hypotheticals. Fair use is a spectrum, aimed at protecting people against spurious or unfair copyright claims. Chances are if a use seems reasonable, it can be defended on fair use grounds in court. If it's blatant and unfair, it'll probably be shot down. But it's altogether unclear until litigation happens, because only courts decide.
This would be a question of fair use in derivative works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#The_fair_use_d...
You're balancing a couple factors here. First, there's the question of whether it's derivative at all. That requires the work be substantively new and different, which the OP probably doesn't meet. See the Batlin standard:
>However, his appeal was denied and the injunction against Snyder's copyright upheld (six members of the court voted to deny, the other three filing a dissenting opinion). Much of this decision focused on the fact that nearly all of the alterations in Snyder's version were made solely to allow the object to be more easily manufactured in plastic rather than metal, and therefore were functional, not artistic or creative... The issue was not whether or not Batlin's bank was a copy of Snyder's— it undoubtedly was— but whether or not Snyder could claim copyright protection, which the court decided he could not.
The OP really only makes changes to make it their company's product, so it's probably just copying, not deriving. But let's assume it passes that standard. We'd still need to justify fair use, which sets 3 standards: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
This is a commercial project copying another company. Won't get much sympathy here.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
>Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
This one doesn't seem to apply much here, it's more for works of 'importance.' For example, the Zapruder film's copyright was invalidated on these grounds when Time tried to enforce it. Maybe you could argue that Facebook is so iconic that its designs have become a part of the artistic zeitgeist, but probably not for some random spinoff.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
>The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.
Looks like just about all of it...
4. and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Probably some good news here. Nuggets copying the Rooms design probably doesn't hurt Facebook much. Arguably it even helps them, since we're talking about it here.
Overall, not a very good case for these guys, but I assume you're thinking about more ambiguous hypotheticals. Fair use is a spectrum, aimed at protecting people against spurious or unfair copyright claims. Chances are if a use seems reasonable, it can be defended on fair use grounds in court. If it's blatant and unfair, it'll probably be shot down. But it's altogether unclear until litigation happens, because only courts decide.
Honestly, who gives a shit? Just let the web move forward the way it has since forever.
In what way does copying another site's design and HTML "move the web forward?"
If anything, doing that holds the web back.
If anything, doing that holds the web back.
Intellectual property...? Also this is generally the kind of community that cares.
> If this product adds value to people's lives, why does it matter if they lifted the website design?
If it adds value to people's lives, that probably makes violations of copyright that make it more likely to be sued out of existence matter more, rather than less, than if it did not.
If it adds value to people's lives, that probably makes violations of copyright that make it more likely to be sued out of existence matter more, rather than less, than if it did not.
Hmmm, I saw your pitch to YC fellowship through topcharts yesterday and now you've made a Show HN with a lifted design of rooms.me? pretty bad move IMO.
The fact it's lifted really clouds anyone to look at the idea or the concept and provide feedback here, change it for the better.
The fact it's lifted really clouds anyone to look at the idea or the concept and provide feedback here, change it for the better.
I've wanted an app like this for a long time. But the wholesale literal copy-pasting of the design just sucks and makes me sad.
I like the idea. but, it turns out that the author is kind of "epic fail" because he exactly copying the landing page of rooms like other HNers described in the comment.
I don't know the landing page of rooms.me before. after reading the comments on this thread, i feel disappointed to the author of this app.
I don't know the landing page of rooms.me before. after reading the comments on this thread, i feel disappointed to the author of this app.
The logo looks kinda like a hairy butt.
Balls, which is what Facebook will have him by for ripping off Rooms.
Setting aside this embarrassing directly-copied-layout issue, I have to say the concept itself is very nice. Is it original idea or is it also cloned from other app?
If former is true, that's a pity the author shoot himself in the knee. If the latter is true, could you point me to other, original app(s)?
If former is true, that's a pity the author shoot himself in the knee. If the latter is true, could you point me to other, original app(s)?
I don't understand the fuss and hate. It seems like a great idea and I downloaded the app. Sure, the landing page is copied. Sure, it is probably immoral. But it's just a landing page not the product. There are only so many kinds of landing pages and people copy them all the time.
Great app! Just what I needed! Would be nice to have an option to edit my nuggets and save to Evernote.
Great idea, and making this available in Kindle would be awesome!
Wow. Bald face stealing of rooms.me.
You forgot to remove code from the app you copied this from.
Seriously?