Stolen DesignMar 31, 2020 6:20:11 GMT -5
Mika
Nindo Goes Here: Edit Profile > Personal > Most Recent Status
groupModerator
age
birthday
rank
occupation
Hisakawa Yamato I understand that and I agree. It's why I stated in my post, "Although it could be argued that the charts were fairly basic in design so it's not like you were stealing some complex diagram that was highly unique in appearance..." Because it's not a complex design--it is very basic, and very simplistic in design. It's easy to copy and replicate.
Going into this, now, I've seen points made by both sides. I also briefly discussed with staff, and it was made apparent to me that the code Ai used was not saved or used for their own use--so it, blatantly, wasn't that they'd stolen her code. It's also been pointed out that the design itself is simple, and Ai was using basic coding that the site provides--anyone can use boxing format, post the official village symbols, and use the village colors and make lines. You can't claim those elements because those are free for all, anyone can do that. It'd be like saying someone stole your face claim because they both have the same hair and eye color--it's simply not theft just because it uses those elements.
It also had it argued to me that staff is trying to switch out old coding with newer, more simplistic and boxy design. Again, because Ai can't claim rights onto the simple and clean-cut boxy aesthetic, I'd agree that it's not something they were wrong in trying to integrate onto site, and as seen with previous redesigns of site sections--like the who's who section, for example--it could easily be stated that they weren't pulling out this aesthetic out of nowhere and blatantly copying Ai's design since they've been shifting site to go for this aesthetic, anyway, and it just takes a bit of investigation to see they've been making these changes previously. So to shift the village relation's to a more clean and boxy design isn't necessary theft.
But, and the reason why I still hold my stance, it was the manner in which this occurred, and the format/layout itself which was used.
Even though staff has been making changes to site, and shifting the aesthetic of things over time, the fact of the matter is that I, personally, have not seen staff posting WIPs on templates and charts for the village relations, previously. This chart was produced after Ai's. So even if staff wasn't intentionally stealing it, I believe it's easy enough to say that at the very least, the outline was inspired by what she'd created--as, again, the format is similar.
Even though staff can claim it's entirely coincidental--and I don't want to claim that it wasn't, because I can't see their minds or know their intents and to assume such would merely be projecting--the fact is that Ai created her charts, they were rejected by staff, and then shortly afterward staff puts up charts that look almost exactly like hers. Even if they didn't actually create it with the intention of copying her chart, and they didn't have malicious intent, at the very least, it does look a little bit sketchy.
It's also the formatting and layout, itself, that I see moreso as being copied. I don't think anybody actually cares about using the thin little boxes, colored lines, and the village symbols.
I discussed with staff that there's many different ways the village relations could have been done, and many different formats in which it could be displayed--to which staff agreed. There's hundreds of different ways to do a chart like this.
Previously, the village relations chart was a simple box with village names on top and on the sides--not unlike an excel spreadsheet. It was simple, it was easy to use, and I liked it. It didn't have any unique design or aesthetic, so I understand why staff might want to update it, but ultimately it worked and I don't believe anyone had any issues with it. But then, for staff to change the diplomatic charts to something so completely different--now accessed by links, where you're taken to each individual village's relationship views--it's a dramatic change that seems to have come out of nowhere, but looking back on site history it seems to have come from Ai. She did state in her WIP that her design wasn't to be used without permission, and again, because the format is so similar I have to argue that it does very much look like it was copied from her. Because the previous diplomatics was so basic and different in appearance, to suddenly have something set up in nearly the exact same way--a little page dedicated to one village, listing what villages they are or aren't friends with, but also for it to even be sectioned off and divided by the status of the villages?
Previously, all the villages were just listed indiscriminately, then their status on alliance was written in colored format.
But, now, they're both sectioned off, for some reason. (Ai's was sectioned off by playable and non-playable villages, and the new one is sectioned off my major, minor, and non-playable villages). It seems like an odd thing to include when there previously had not been any use of it, and seeing as how Ai's chart was the first (from what I've seen) to use that segregation, it does make it look more suspicious.
Granted, the two charts (staff's an Ai's) are similar enough, but also simplistic enough that it's easy to argue either way. Again, Ai's design wasn't particularly unique. But considering the manner and timeframe in which things were done, it's easy to interpret it as staff taking Ai's design but trying to change it enough to claim it as their own. Because I think that it's easy enough to come up with different formats, or a different way of creating these charts/tables, and because it would have been easy enough to have asked Ai to use her design or even ask to use it as a base then change it how you see fit for site--as she had initially been offering it--I don't think it's completely unreasonable to just ask for it to be taken down or to ask that it be changed.
Ultimately, it's up to staff to decide--I'm only an NPC mod. I'm sure that they'll discuss and I do understand also where they're coming from, and their stance and position on the matter is also pretty valid. They also make some good points (some of which Yamato also displayed), and it is fairly easy from an outside force to see this as very thin lines and with a lot of grey matter. However, ultimately, I still hold my stance and remain with my opinion until someone can give me reason to feel otherwise. Because I am an artist who's had things stolen from me, before, I also acknowledge and admit that I am also taking personal feelings into why I'm holding so strongly onto my position, but I also try to think that I'm a fairly unbiased person who can be reasoned to with logic and good enough of an argument. Staff has made fair and good arguments, but I still ultimately agree with Ai.
Respectfully,
-Mika
|
|
