Now I don't know what icon is in the Flat UI pack, but to cite the DMCA's icon as being 'kinda lifted' from theirs[1] when it is so similar to a number of CC-licenced icons on The Noun Project seems like a poor argument in my eyes.
I think you are hitting the nail on the head - with styles/aesthetic arguments like this, when is it a copy? Adding a leaf of paper into the icon? Colouring it in? Adding a line of faux text below the faux image? Which came first? Which was the origin?
My only point was that when you are getting hammered by people and the evidence you provide is that, it looks poorly thought out.
What evidence? What am I missing? Does someone have a link to the Flat UI icon he's referring to? The impression I got from his message is, Flat UI included a verbatim copy of the DN icon.
That's the impression he wants you to get, but you are being deceived by his misleading wording. Flat-UI's newspaper icon is different than the DN icon.
"... they even managed to kinda lift the old DN icon ..."
I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing as to whether the Flat UI guys copied them or not, but like the larger argument, the icon he is putting forward as copied work is itself conceptually very similar to other existing icon work(s). As a designer I would be more than a little miffed if that design appeared if I had created the Noun Project's version and not openly licensed it.
If that is the case, it somewhat undermines the claim that the assets are fully owned by them or even that ownership can be so quickly claimed.
What he's claiming is not the perfect copy of the shape, but the style. It's a clear "copy" too, very very similar. In the end, if you change a pixel from that you can make a "not the same" icon, don't you think?
We can discuss on how many differences but it will end on nothing. I can express that, 2 o 3 differences are not enough to claim "different" and you can claim than 1 will not be enough too.
To me, they're clearly wrong. But if the guy copied the art and pasted it, that's another story.
