[READ THIS FIRST – There has been an update to this story.]
Nathan Smith was ripped-off, today.
In the past, we’ve referred to a churches ripping-off logos, designs and complete websites as, “strategically borrowed.”
In his post, Ministry Imitation, John Saddington asked:
Is this a moment of grace or a moment of justice?
There was a mix of replies. Everyone agreed it was in poor taste.
Adam insightfully commented:
- We’ve devalued creativity in the church for so long, that we’ve lost some of our most creative talent. We’ve either never brought them in and led them to Christ because we’ve been ignoring them, or ignored them out of our congregations.
- We’re generally led by a generation that doesn’t value creativity. Where it’s not valued, it’s not brought out.
As timing would have it, John Tweeted this earlier today:
Unfortunately, this is true. Perhaps this is why great web builders like Nathan Smith get ripped-off.
Exhibit “A”
This is the website Smith built. It is a piece of beauty. The question is, however, when it comes to a trade such as web design, is imitation the greatest form of flattery?
Exhibit “B”
I think we can all agree that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. This, on the other hand, is a rip-off. Go ahead, inspect the code:
[Click for Larger View]
They even pulled some of the same description and keywords. You may also notice they’re both built on the 960GS. Of course, lots of sites are built on the 960GS, but a web dev knows his own code, and this is Smith’s web work as plainly pointed out on his website:
So, what did Nathan Smith have to say about it?
I’ve emailed New Hope Church, asking them who built their website. Perhaps this has happened right under their noses. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Smith isn’t sure how he feels about his work being copied as it has, and I feel fairly opinionated about the issue.
So that leaves you.
Tell me, what do you think?
[HT: John Saddinton]
[UPDATE]
Via Twitter, Nathan told me that LCtv and designer Chris Merritt were not bothered by it, and shared this Tweet with me:
These guys are outstanding.
Be sure to read Nathan Smith’s comment below. He clarifies a few things, and brings up some really great points.
Eric J says
Interesting i’m guessing the church in question told the designer/developer we like this website make us one like it and that is how things get copied.
Eric Dye says
Perhaps, so. I’ve emailed the church, inquiring about the designer.
Brian Notess says
I’m pretty sure it’s immoral on some level.
It has nothing to do with whether Nathan or the folks at LCtv care whether someone uses their code, it’s a matter of ethics.
Someone invested a lot of time and money building one of the best church sites on the internet and another person presumably thought it was okay to just copy it. Benefiting from someone else’s hard work and investment without permission, recognition and/or compensation has to violate some kind of ethical principal.
That and it perpetuates the lack of creativity that John and Adam both mentioned.
The other thing that bugs me is that they turned a great web UX into a less-than-mediocre UX even though they copy/pasted the code.
Eric Dye says
Very well said.
Thank you, Brian.
Andrew says
Ripping off a design certainly seems immoral. It’s inappropriate for a church to take without asking.
Perhaps the saddest part of the story is this: if New Hope Church *asked* for permission to borrow some elements of the site, I bet they would have gotten permission. I know I always was amenable to sharing code and graphics when asked.
Eric Dye says
Good points, and you’re right, it is certainly inappropriate.
Antoine RJ Wright says
This is sad, not just because it is a rip off, but because the church has done little to develop giftings in art, Dev, and design that would keep the from happening. There would be less a need to imitate if folks weren’t so bound to “copy what works” for some temporal “return on investment” metric.
Eric Dye says
Very true. I hope ChurchMag can help change this, and inspire the Church to develop these giftings.
Nathan Smith says
Just to clarify: I didn’t do the design of the current LifeChurch.tv site (though I wish I had mad design skills). On my portfolio page — http://sonspring.com/work — I credit the designer as none other than the talented Chris Merritt — http://pixelightcreative.com — He and I have worked on several projects together in the past. It was from Chris that I first learned of the “inspired” site in question.
Chris did the LCtv design, based on original concept comps produced in-house by LCtv’s creative digerati director guy, Zack Foster. I then took those PSDs and turned ’em into working flat-file HTML/CSS/JS templates, which then went back in-house for a build out by LCtv’s dev team.
Also, to clarify, the LCtv guys aren’t too bothered by the ripoff:
http://twitter.com/nathansmith/status/72710925102223361
LCtv gives away so much of their work and resources as it is, that they just get a silent chuckle when another “shadow church” (as I’ve heard it dubbed by another large-ish church) derives their own design heavily from the original.
Which leads me back to my initial thought: I’m not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it’s “unethical” but on the other, to really raise a ruckus would be like throwing elbows whilst grabbing a rebound in basketball, while another (less talented) player yells: “Dude, same team!” 🙂
Eric Dye says
Great stuff. Thank you for laying out the details and bringing up some really good points. Love the analogy. So, true. I’m glad your on the team. 🙂
Chris Martin says
“Same Team” very well said.
Also agree it’s probably a good idea to ask.
Michael Hyatt says
This kind of thing makes me nuts. I have had my blog design ripped off in small and large pieces. If someone asks, I always say, “yes.” If they don’t, I always feel ripped off. I think this is theft, pure and simple.
Loren Pinilis says
Then can I have the code for the comment, tweet, and facebook function on your RSS feed? Ha ha, just kidding 🙂
That’s the sweetest custom feature I’ve every seen in any blog.
Eric Dye says
This would be treated a lot differently if we were talking about taking and using pieces of someones book, wouldn’t it?
Thank you for your insights. 🙂
Loren Pinilis says
We once hired a designer for T-shirt graphics. We got it back and were more than pleased.
Then a business colleague politely pointed out to us that elements of pur design had already been used in his T-shirts. The designer we hired just deceived us as to the originality. We had no knowledge of our colleague’s other shirts and no knowledge that the design was heavily copied. Our business colleague was really nice, we all laughed about it, he called up the designer and had a few strong words, and everything worked out well.
For all we know, the church hired a design firm, the firm looked up popular Christian sites, and the firm sent it to the church without them having any knowledge that it was an imitator. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case.
Stephen Bateman says
I totally agree with Loren. The church probably isn’t at fault here. The copy/paste savvy designer, probably more so.
Incidentally, I just redesigned Loren’s site and can vouch for it’s originality 😉
(Though I, like all webbies, certainly took design cues from other sites.)
Brian Notess says
You could be right. Maybe they had no idea.
But it’s really hard for me to believe that an aspiring multi-site church with an internet campus had never been to LifeChurch.tv and were unaware of their site’s similarity.
Seems like a stretch.
Eric Dye says
You guys are right.
I inquired the church as to the designer, and it would seem as though they have no idea.
Mickey says
That’s quite clearly a rip-off. I’m very curious what they have to say about it. Like others, I’m guessing the designer is at fault and the church was unaware, but you never know.
The closest I’ve come is with a logo. Mine (Sept, 2009):
http://twitter.com/#!/greenmellen
Church that was apparently “inspired” by it (Nov, 2010):
http://twitter.com/#!/borocitychurch
We haven’t even bothered contacting them, because it’s really not a big deal. Plus, it could be coincidental, though they seem similar enough that it’s probably not… 🙂
Eric Dye says
That’s crazy. I totally know what you mean.
(Nice design ;-))
Chris Ames says
Im on staff at North Point Community Church and we have a similar philosophy as Life Church. We routinely give away code and help other churches when asked.
Eric Dye says
… and it’s an awesome philosophy. Such a Christ-like and “Dude, same team!” attitude Nathan pointed out.
We need to ask, and then give credit.
Plain and simple.
(In your case, it would be: “Dewde, same team!”)
Brian Notess says
I think my biggest lesson from all this is to ask people to give me their code 😉
Eric Dye says
True story.
Chris Martin says
As a video producer, I would gladly share my work with another church that asked. There is probably quite a bit of difference between the 2 media, but still an original work.
Asking is probably a good thing to do in this case. I have asked other churches to use videos before, no one has ever told me no.
Eric Dye says
I think the two mediums are fairly similar in this regard. A good comparison, actually.
Again, it’s encouraging to see everyone working together. It’s important to give credit when it’s due.
Joel Walkley says
What about various churches which use the same WP theme? That is a slightly different case because it is “legally?” ripped off by either purchase or a free theme. But a theme still presents a situation in which many churches will have near identical websites.
Eric Dye says
Theming a website from a theme farm is far different than copying and pasting a custom built site.
April says
I agree that if they had just asked, it would be likely that the chruch would have allowed them to use the code or at least part of it. I don’t understand why even churches feel the need to be greedy, it goes against everything we teach.
Eric Dye says
Very, true, April.
Even if you already know they’ll give it to you, never assume and always ask. A little attribution wouldn’t hurt, either.
Tim Liston says
Ouch. We have a good relationship with Life Church.tv and asked if we could use their template for our website. The answer was yes, as long as we made it our own. Perhaps we asked the wrong person on staff(??) But we certainly wouldn’t have done so without permission. We will be glad to compensate Nate – and to apologize directly to him. This wasn’t intentional by any means. In fact (once again) we thought we had permission. I’ll contact Nate right now.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
Tim Liston, Pastor
New Hope Church
Eric Dye says
Read this.
🙂
PatrckB says
Basically, it is about showing respect for someone else’s work.
Reusing without giving credit is implying that it is your own creation. Giving credit in the source would have gone a long way…
Eric Dye says
It’s important to give credit, for sure. As you can read here, the code/design was freely given to the Church.
Nathan Smith says
By the way, I just had a phone conversation with the pastor of New Hope Church, Tim Liston. He said they had permission from someone on staff at Life Church to use the site design. So it makes this particular incident a moot point.
If at all possible, could ChurchMag post a clarification / retraction, something along the lines of clearing New Hope’s name? I think that’d be the classy thing to do. And I’m sorry that my initial tweet set off what’s become a bit of a firestorm! I apologized to Pastor Tim, and he laughed it off, with a “these things happen” sort of good humored nature. I feel bad that a morning tweet before coffee triggered a chain reaction. 🙁
Brian Notess says
I suppose there’s an important lesson here about jumping to conclusions…
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/
… And now in kind of feel like a jerk.
Tim Liston says
Eric-
A retraction buried 14 comments (+replies) at the end of the not-so-kind hit piece of yours about our church isn’t exactly what I was looking for. Can you do something else? I hope you understand.
FYI: We’ve made copies of everything here.
Thanks!
Tim
Eric Dye says
Tim, I would never put a retraction 14 comments in.
I have updated the two posts referring to your website, and have written this. Please, give it a read and comment if you like. 🙂
Nathan Smith says
Definitely. I think that jump-to-conclusions mat needs a #FAIL on it, because I landed there squarely this week. 🙂
Eric Dye says
:-/
Eric Dye says
No, no. I feel like a jerk. :-/
Eric Dye says
I’m really sorry about this (read here). I take responsibility for amping it up. I hope we can still be friends. :-/