|
But theirs is blue, Dan. Blue. Totally different.
=/
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's in the "unique logos" category
too. Wow.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Unoriginal bastards.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The response from them via email:
"We buy logo designs from different
designers.
Please contact your designer regarding that
issue, as if he did several concepts for you,
it's very likely he sold the concepts you
didn't use..."
It's just can't get any better than that,
folks.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Sigh is right. These guys are trouble.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
wow, crappy. ugh.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Sorry man, wow, wow. wow.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And it gets better:
"The main shape according to our
designer is a font symbol and you do not have
the rights to claim ownership to freeware
font symbols.
Other than the actual shape, I see no
relevance.
Our logo was registered at c-site, the
registration has been approved. According to
c-site, we own the copyrights to that actual
logo.
We do not need to steal anyones
ideas."
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm so using them for the rebranded Place
Name Here
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Looks like they use SteadFast for their host:www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=208.100.47
.237&ema...
Just send a DMCA complaint to
abuse@steadfast.net. 9 times out of 10 hosts
will side with the complaint and take down
the content. They do have a right to file a
counter-claim, but it will probably be more
effective at getting the message across that
you mean business. Plus, it's the legally
proper way, too :)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<< starting now.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Oh Dan, that is rough.
I bet you can build a quick little page
that compares the 2 designs and the
rights/ownership/authorship of each element.
The interesting part about this is that most
of us designers know this is wrong, but where
are our rights (if there are any) protected.
This could be used as a great example to
teach a lot of us about and issue we are all
lacking in.
If anything, turn it into something
constructive.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The fact that they are even trying to defend
it is mega-retarded.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Wow. That kinda sucks :(
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
That's just wrong. What a bunch of nasty a$$
bags.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Thats pretty cheesy and a complete rip off.
Also, the name of it - restyling- had to have
been thought of from you restyling your site
and logo.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Their flimsy defense is just as appalling as
the original crime.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There's actually a 'Livechat' function on
their site, needs Windows to work though,
maybe people could call them? ;)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Dan, perhaps you need to develop a reputation
for suing scumbags like this. I'm astonished
at their chutzpah.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Group action works well in this case. Dan,
don't sue. Write a blog post about it and
encourage people to write them and google
bomb them with a link to your post and their
name.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This isn't to say, by the way, that you
should say anything that is not factual, or
encourage other people to do anything that is
not factual.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
How do people sleep at night...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
well, you could buy it and then get exclusive
ownership, so if it ever happens again then
they will sue other companies for infringing
on their copyrights. But this is pretty crap!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Dan: this must be so frustrating for you! I
would be furious.
Zach Klein found himself in a similar
situation:
www.vimeo.com/clip:1061
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
From their responses, it doesn't sound like
they actually have a legal team there. Either
that, or the legal team hasn't been put into
the loop yet.
"We do not need to steal anyone's
ideas" is not exactly sound legal
defense.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Good God! Is it really too much to expect
these days that people who are going to be
making money off of it actually design what
they are selling?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
But, it says quite clearly on the page
"predesigned logos" they didn't say
*they* predesigned it. It was *predesigned*
when it got to them, so they're in the clear.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You would think they would be more
understanding and that they would investigate
the matter further. I would do it purely to
respect the effort that goes into creating
unique and individual brand identities,not to
mention that I would want to assure my
customers about my integrity. You can clearly
see who the better party is. If it were me, I
would be furious with their response to your
email. I hope this resolves itself for you,
without getting too complicated.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
fuck no...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
omg... why?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
We need names..... how do we find that out?
What designer would do that if they think
they can stay in our industry? It's making me
seriously ill!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Geez - I can't decide which is worse, the
stupidity or the hubris!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I emailed them via their contact form and got
this reply :
Scott,
I already contacted the designer who worked
on the logotype to provide the actual
freeware font, which includes the main shape
used in both logos.
I hope you both understand that if he used
the same shape as the freeware font includes,
he may not claim ownership.
We'll be contacting Dan with more info
soon.
regards,
Peter Olexa
Vilords media
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone could look at Dan's
logo and see "a freeware font".
Sure, aspects of the logo may be inspired
from type's curly braces, but to say that
because a font is free the logo cannot be
claimed as Dan's is like saying that because
the tree was free that the violin is not the
maker's. Or, you know what I mean.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
According to your website, you did the
rebrand in December, correct?
Please check the screeshot for RH Restyling
(company from Holland) we did in October I
believe. Hmm, I am just currious how it would
be possible to "copy" your logo
when your "rebranding" was done in
mid december.
URL: www.logomaid.com/tmp/simplebitsfraud/simplebi
tsfraud.jpg
You'll find out the logo we sell at
logomaid.com is one of the concepts the
customer didn't choose to use.
We are strongly considering a lawsuit
against simplebits not only because of the
logo, but also the fact that you are harming
our goodwill.
regards,
Paul Viluda
Vilords media
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
LogoMaid has been short on
"goodwill" since there beginnings.
Despite rave reviews from upstanding
customers like Mr. Blankenship (featured on
the homepage), I have a hard time believing
that LogoMaid is an upstanding member of the
design community. Chop-shops like that do
nothing to advance the opinion of design in
the business world.
Goodwill my ass.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul,
C'mon now. Are we to just trust your word
of "in October I believe"?
Your screenshot also tells us absolutely
nothing.
It's infuriating and hilarious to me that
you're "considering a lawsuit against simplebits". I can without question say I've
never heard of LogoMaid before today.
Also, the logotype is not a freeware font.
They are four brackets set in Avenir.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for your opionion Mike. Although
logomaid.com is up no longer than 2 years,
our company is in the design and new media
business since 98. We did campaigns for
customers like Vodafone, T-Online, Nextra,
Citroen etc.
Now, let's not talk about our goodwill,
let's concentrate on the simplebits issue.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I never heard of simplebits, to say the
truth. Now, do you want to me to find the
exact date or should I send you a screenshot
saying when the file was created?
Yes, I spoke to the designer and it's not a
freeware font. Not sure who you talked to, or
exchanged emails with before (I believe Mr.
Olexa). He gave you the wrong information.
Did you ever think someone may have the
same idea like you...rotating 4 brackets? Or
do you think this idea is so unique that only
you could create something so
"sophisticated"?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well if goodwill is the basis of your
lawsuit, then yes, let's talk about it. Let's
talk about your designers, one of whom I
happen to know, and who I'm even guessing
might be the designer of this logo since he
has been a heavy contributor to your
collection of logos. Let's talk about how you
guys buy the left-over logo concepts from
low-budget design contests over at
SitePoint.com. Why not talk about it? You
brought the discussion here, you decided that
it was appropriate to threaten lawsuits in a
silly little flickr discussion, and you
brought up goodwill. I say keep the goodwill
discussion going if it is of such concern to
you to maintain a certain image and goodwill
in the community.
Let's face it, Paul. LogoMaid is a
chop-shop logo dealer, selling flimsy
left-over concepts to people who sadly just
don't know any better. Your goodwill was in
jeopardy long before the simplebits issue
ever came up.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Let's also not forget that logomaid is no
stranger to logo controversy, either. The
guys at Panic have pointed this stuff out
before.
www.panic.com/extras/ripoff
Scroll down to 2nd page of thumbnails,
first thumb on that page.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Of course, the same as web template providers
buy web templates, we buy logos. Doesn't mean
we do not design 60% of the logos inhouse.
I am not saying I do not want to talk about
it, but you are little off the issue, don't
you think?
I am sure you do not like our business
model and I understand you are mad, as it's
much cheaper for people to buy our logos than
designing it by you or any regular design
studio.
We design over 50 custom logotypes per
week, that's over 200 per month. Offering
ready made logos doesn't mean we do not
provide custom services.
Mike, it's about the market...if people
wouldn't be interested in our products, we
wouldn't provide it...as simple as that.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Oh come on. Looking at that screenshot, it
looks like it was made in a hurry to cover
this all up. Very poorly too, if I may add.
Logo #4 looks so out of place among the
others. Seriously, it's quite obvious you
guys ripped Dan here.
And good luck with that lawsuit Mr. Olexa.
Make sure you have some extra cash handy. ;-)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mike, don't trust everything you see. That's
a bit too much.
The magnet picture was traced and finished
in photoshop.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Taario, of course it was!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Are you saying that Panic "copied"
that logo like Dan did? *snort*
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
we have whole sets of logos like the
magnet...do you think all the objects we have
are stolen from someones website? Or the
ideas. It's about the picture/photo, trace
and finish up in photoshop.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I understand, but what are the chances of
your logos looking exactly the same as Simplebits' or Panic's? If you
took inspiration from those logos, yours
would at least look somewhat different.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Simplebits - the main shape is the same as I
guess it was the same font used and rotated.
I would lie about the procedure...I guess Dan
knows better, I am not the designer. Inner
part it different.
Panic? Says lookalike ... you know how many
similar magnets could be out there? It's an
object
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Panic? Says lookalike ... you know how many
similar magnets could be out there? It's an
object
Yeah, so if there are "many similar
magnets" out there, why was yours exactly the same as Panic's? That's the only thing
I'm having trouble understanding here.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
how the same?
- different angle
- different shape if you see the detail
I guess when it would be blue, it would
look different to you :), but red is pretty
characteristic for a magnet, correct?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm so tired of this crap.
Dan, I think it's time to take the gloves
off. Lets raise the cash (should be easy
enough to do with the network we're tapped
into) and send out a message.
I'll chip in $500 to get the fund going.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul,
Did you take a moment to read Dan's post about his new logo. Take note the following quotes from that
post :
"Several months ago, I finally started
on a new logo design"
So Dan's logo was made several months
before December.
"It went rather quickly, playing with
four curly brackets set in Avenir that
created a frame around a hand-drawn
cube..."
After creating the logo Dan spent months
updating the design of his site and then
revealed a new site/logo around December 4th.
Over 30 people have already commented that
the LogoMaid version is a copy. None of us
have a single thing to gain. We are here
because we know of Dan's work and are happy
to support him as well as other well known
web designers when this sort of thing
happens.
Rarely are logos blatantly reused. The
person who copied SimpleBit's logo tried to
hide their tracks by making a few small
tweaks to the original. 9rules recently had their logo copied. It wasn't an exact match, but when it was
viewed by someone familiar with 9rules site
it was obviously a copy. They took the
original, flipped it, modified the color a
bit and changed a leaf.
This is exactly what happened with Dan's
logo. It was copied, the door was added to
the left side of the block and the top was
made into a roof. To say its just
coincidence is ignoring the obvious. There
is a reason Dan used the brackets in his
logo, they are used extensively in CSS which
is what Dan uses to make standards compliant
websites. Are we to believe that the font
Dan mentions using in making his logo is the
same another designer just happened to chose
in making a logo that mirrors SimpleBits?
Then they both decided to make a box out of
them? And then they both decide to put a box
inside? Not coincidence, plain and simple
theft of SimpleBit's design.
If its not obvious yet you have two
choices. Drag this out and LogoMaid will
suffer. Do the right thing and just take it
down and this whole conversation ends.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now are you serious about the house? Left
door was added? Check simplebits and check
our house. What's similar about that?
Ok so you say it was a leak of informations
from Dan's office? Is that what are you
trying to say? If he did the logotype months
before publishing it. Or espionage? Common,
you're funny.
One more thing Scott, you forgot we got the
logo registered.
I am pretty confident, that our logotype is
the original.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
wow, it appears that logomaid owns the
copyright on the apple logo too.
www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=679&mainc
at=1
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The main shape according to our designer is a
font symbol and you do not have the rights to
claim ownership to freeware font symbols...
Just so everyone knows, its perfectly
acceptable to take public domain elements
(e.g. curly brackets) and arrange them in a
way that warrants copyright protection (e.g.
rotating and making a box out of them). I
mean, to not do so would mean that every book
wouldn't have copyright because the
individual words were already in the public
domain.
Furthermore, different elements can be
afforded protection. For example, the
brackets alone, regardless of the content
inside, may be original enough to warrant
protection. And one does not need to publish
a logo design to gain copyright protection.
As soon as the logo is fixed in any medium,
whether seen by one or a million, copyright
attaches.
I only state this because some responses
(and not just the one I quoted–and not just
the ones on this comment thread) have been
legally-moronic; the above isn't an opinion
on right or wrong.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Both logos are made with the same font,
making a box out of the brackets with a box
inside. Your box has a door and a roof.
Dan's door is in the back, you can't see it
and his roof is flat. Just kidding, are you
looking at the same logo the other 30 people
on here are looking at? Its a copy that has
been slightly modified. Anyone looking at
Dan's logo that sees the logo in question can
see this, well everyone but you.
You need to read about copyright laws. The
logo was copyright the moment Dan made it.
Copyright protection subsists from the time
the work is created in fixed form. The
copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the
author who created the work. Only the author
or those deriving their rights through the
author can rightfully claim copyright.
The fact that you were able to register it
was a mistake. The logo was stolen and last I
checked its against the law to sell stuff
that was stolen.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul, after seeing this :
markmeeker said "wow, it appears that
logomaid owns the copyright on the apple logo
too."
www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=679&mainc
at=1
SimpleBits might be the least of your
worries. Now, let me guess...oh I
know...Apples logo is white and doesn't have
a ring around it? Is that one registered as
well? Can't wait to hear your reply one this
one...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Right, so why do we have copyrights and
trademarks? Hmm, waste of money? The box and
the house is definitely not similar.
Regarding the brackets -> I bet there are
several logos which use the same
"background".
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Thundercats, hoooooooo!
www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=4487&main
cat=1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ThunderCats_logo.
svg
Check mate!
www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=4275&main
cat=1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apple_Chess_Icon.
png
I like this game
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Damn, I guess they are just all coincidences.
The Thundercats is a bit of a stretch but
the Chess logo is practically a trace of the
original.
You were quick to take that Apple Store
logo down weren't you? But not fast
enough...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
www.flickr.com/photos/7505195@N08/
Apparently Flickr thinks our resident thief
is 'friends' with Dan...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No coinsidencies, the apple logo was not
supposed to be there. Was moved to non-unique
logos.
Thundercats? Snake vs. Tiger?
Go ahead, I am just glad you are inspecting
all products.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Apple logo is unique and it belongs to
Apple. I'm sure they'd be interested to know
that you are trying to make money off of
their logo.
www.logomaid.com/detail.php?uid=679&mainc
at=2
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The icon is ok for anyone selling apple
products. You know how many similar icons are
being sold as icon sets and people use them?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The apple in the logo is a blatant copy of
the Apple logo and is bad enough, but
including the text 'Apple Store' beneath it
couldn't make it more obvious...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Does LogoMaid sell Apple products?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Dan,
Fight it to the death and if you need
financial backup... let me know.
Ok lets look at the facts.
2 rips -> LogoMaid
0 -> Dan
You decide?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
are the ones selling apple icons selling
apple products?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Show me someone else selling an Apple logo.
Apple allows authorized companies to use
their logo, not sell it. If you are so sure
its ok then why not ask them...
www.apple.com/legal/contacts.html
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Who sells apple icons?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul, you might want to read this :
www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3r
dparties.html
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I will also chip in to any fund - I think Dan
has a good idea there. The network you high
caliber guys have going could seriously do
some damage to these frauds.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ryanriley > do a research at google and
you'll find out
scott > We never intended to infringe
apple's copyrights, the symbol was designed
for apple distributors, forums and such.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Right, if we were doing illegal business
activies I would spend 4 hours online
clearing up the issue.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Give it a rest, Paul.The more we dig, the
more violations we'll find. You've done a
good job demonstrating your lack of
understanding of copyright law here so far.
It's a shame you didn't think about that,
especially when you're considering to sue
Simplebits.
Actually, hell, I take it all back. Keep
kicking and screaming, Paul. I'd be happy to
throw in some cash and see you and LogoFraud
go down.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, Paul, you'd spend 4 hours online trying
to JUSTIFY doing illegal business.
Only no one is buying it here.
That apple logo is a blatant rip. It's
amazing you're actually still here, keeping
this discussion alive. I was content with
making one comment about it, but you had to
just keep coming back with the pathetic
excuses. Well, this is what you get for it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul, do you have any idea how tight this
community is? Then to come back with the
typical "it wasn't me" response.
Personally I have a lot of financial/legal
contacts and would love nothing more than to
see one of these slime companies put in the
ground. Then maybe the others will learn that
ripping is wrong, illegal and won't be taken
lightly.
Also, do you think Dan built that logo
overnight? Well if you do then you have
proven mine and everyone elses point.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Obviously this doesn't lead nowhere.
jnewland > stopping "kicking and
screeming"
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"I never heard of simplebits, to say the
truth."
Did they really say that? Nooooo way. Who
hasn't heard of SimpleBits? That just ruined
their credibility in my eyes.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@vasta, that's is simply the most common
defense of a ripper. "Oh, I didn't know
it existed"... sigh
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Vilords, here's the thing. Both are 100
percent exactly the same!! If your in the
logo business, and you make 36500 logos a
second, should dropping this one really be
that big of a deal to you?
I mean c'mon.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, it just shocks me that a
"design" company wouldn't know of
Dan, who is one of the best designers I have
ever come across. Crazy.
You know, I think I'm going to write a blog
post about this tomorrow. Not that anyone
reads my blog, but just to speak my mind.
Right now, I sleep.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
That can't be the real Joshua Blankenship quoted on the LogoMaid site. Tell me it
ain't so, Shua?
The photo of the guy has no facial hair, so
it can't be Blanksy.
Maybe LogoMaid is also stealing identities
as well as logo "ideas."
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Obviously this doesn't lead nowhere.
So it does lead somewhere? It's clear from
your comments you have little or no
understanding of copyright law, English or
even good manners.
The simple solution is a mea culpa, the
removal of your shiny 200-buck rip off and a
promise to 'research google' to find out
exactly who is who in the industry you of
which you wish to be part.
I suspect however all that will occur is
more pre-school, it wasn't me excuses and
vague legal willy-waving.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@ Renaud - Wow... I didn't know I gave
testimonials. I feel violated.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
*sniff sniff*
Someone's pants are on fire.
*cough vilord cough*
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think everyone who wants to use a logo
should register and copyright it. Dan can
blame just himself he didn't do it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@midster05, did you sign on to flickr just to
let Dan know it's his fault that someone
stole his logo?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think I know the designer who worked on the
logo for Logomade. I doubt he copied it. I
don't know...this smells like spring jealousy
to me.
Guru Dan, close the session *LOL*.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@midster05 - "Copyright protection
subsists from the time the work is created in
fixed form. The copyright in the work of
authorship immediately becomes the property
of the author who created the work. Only the
author or those deriving their rights through
the author can rightfully claim
copyright." In other words, all you
have to do is create something original and
it belongs to you without having to file
anything or pay anything.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why should I believe Mr. Guru was the first
one creating the logo? I don't see nothing
original about the brackets neither. I bet
the main shape was already used by plenty of
other designers who could claim they were the
first using it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
First off... there is a flaw in Flickr's
system that allows people to open an account
for the sole purpose of supporting an
argument in someone's comments. They should
make it a requirement to have a minimum
number of photos posted before an account is
allowed to leave comments.
"Mr. Guru" as you call him is a
highly respected designer who's schedule is
full of speaking engagements and who's
portfolio is packed full of good, original design. He is trusted among his peers and
has something that LogoMerde obviously
doesn't... integrity. This isn't just some
guy who started a blog and slapped a
bracket-box logo on his site. There are
plenty of people here, and many many more
that have not commented, that will vouch for
him.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also like the familiar use of double negatives in pretty_petra's comment.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This is such a bull***t! Dan, I saw similar
bracket composition you both used long time
ago. Be more creative next time.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
wow, three people sign up today just to
lambast Dan over an issue they obviously have
no expertise in. Well done people.
Dan, totally up to you what steps you
decide to take here, either sigh and move on,
or fight them in court.
All I know is you will have the backing of
the entire design community behind you.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
graphics2code says: "Paul, do you have any idea how tight
this community is? Then to come back with the
typical "it wasn't me" response. : Damn Straight!
Vireal says: "I never heard of simplebits, to say the
truth." - You're fricken Kidding me! I am parading
around in shock! You are a total n00b!
tanjatiziana says: *sniff sniff*
Someone's pants are on fire.
*cough vilord cough*
Listen, Mr Vilords you'd better get your
act together before it's too late! Not to
sound cliche, but have you any idea what
you're doing!?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am not supporting LogoMaid nor Dan. I am
just saying the bracket composition is
nothing original.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ledo_bridgeportwv : It uniquely identifies Dan's Work, keyword
being uniquely.
Hey "Vilord", I read that book you ripped off yesterday: "How to lie through your teeth"
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
made in space: Is there something more
between you guys we do not know about? ;) or
just brownnosing?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
