[beseku]

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.

[tptacek]

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.

[integraton]

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.

[tptacek]

I see that now. Thanks!

[beseku]

"... 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.

[hkolek]

Similarity is completely irrelevant. If we independently arrive at the same original work then that is not copyright violation. That's not what copyright is about. We then each hold the copyright of our respective works, even if they're completely identical (in practice it will probably be hard to proof that you didn't just copy the other work if they're really identical).

IANAL, but that's what I was told by a law student.

[cooldeal]

Here's the comparisons.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332635

It's certainly not a verbatim copy or even close.

[tptacek]

Agree! Thanks.