If you look at the member's areas of both sites Slickcash is obviously copying PG and then just changing a few things. For example on the gallery pages they are both using a header image of 299 X 190. I seriously doubt both came up with those unusual dimensions separately. Also the entire layout of the member's areas is almost identical. Same size thumbs, placement of links, similar bordered tables used, etc. Even the use of the header frame is virtually identical.

The wording and link placement of the 2257 is an exact copy. They even copied word for word the PG's copyright notice chaning only the contact e-mail address.

The old snatches.com design was a blatant copy of GiveMePink too, noone seemed to care then, why would they care now

One of our main sites have been copied atleast 4-5 times with both name, concept/content, color, and style... been a problem with PPC in SE, since the surfer can get confused which one is the original one, if one of the clones is bidding on the same keywords :disgust

But I guess that is part of the business - just always have to be one step ahead, and make the others play catch up :2 cents:

Here's a screenshot of some of the stuff I'm talking about

http://www.bigandsexy.net/pgsc2.jpg

Honestly, design really doesn't matter that much. When they start stealing your traffic, then it's time to get concerned.

It's a sad reality of this biz - My brand names get scraped and SEO'd by thieving fuckers on a regular basis.

But what do you do, when even a search on an SE starts with your query and links it to the SE's crony club.

Look and feel complaints like this one, do have merit, but they are hard to dispute. It's not a copyright violation if the images are licensed by each party.

I'd love to be in the courtroom as lawyers split shaved hairs over '5 horizontal vaginas with two brunette and three blonde...'

The best defense is be the best. Secure your brands if they do apply and enforce them, but be the best.

Uuuhh...whoooops.

Dude, do you really think that??? LOL :helpme

Tours are absolutely a science. To think otherwise is absurd.

Brad

Yeah that might be a possible scenario.

Good post ... I personally think this says a lot about SlickCash

insert :50orglaughs here

ummm. lor. its a knock off.
just callin as i see it.
duke

No kidding, its a little late for paid damage control.

this thread is very interesting...

to me unless you create your own custom colors and fonts. Its going to happen.

It would seem that the designer was given the other site to use as an example, for direction. They did not simply "copy" the site though - it seems to me that like it or not it's still fair play because it was re-done from scratch. Kind of like how when you go to the gas station and see all of those cologne scents "inspired" by the name brands. LOL

In my honest opinion it's obviously not "original" but at the end of the day they used their own content and paid their own designer to build something strikingly similar. It's not the worst thing that could happen, not even close.. and although it is probably not wrong in any technical or legal way, that is the kind of thing that is likely to divide those of us who say to ourselves "I would never do that!"

Cheers,

Brad

Is this a standard 2257 disclaimer? I don't recall ever seeing this particular wording, but I could be wrong.

Both sites have this same paragraph on their legal pages:

"In compliance with the Federal Labeling and Record-Keeping Law (also known as 18 U.S.C. 2257), all models located within our domain were 18 years of age or older during the time of photography. All models proof of age is held by the custodian of records, which is listed below organized by producer. All content and images are in full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and associated regulations."

http://sweetpinkholes.com/usc.php
http://legal.givemepink.com/?2257 (lol, they show h/c thumbs on their legal page)

Borrowed concepts normally don't bother me much but this one is pretty damn close, lol.

You forgot the part where designer shows client an innovative idea and client blatantly dismisses it, demanding a closer look to original requested cloned design..

who's the designer.. please tell me... this is fucked up !

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

well it's pretty general type of design anyway....

It's interesting how this issue is tempered (or blown up) based on the size of the players involved.

When someone literally rips brands names from a 'little player' noone gives a fuck. But when a big player gets it up the creative ass the way most little players have to consider a day in the life, it's a federal issue.

Wake me up, when the playing field starts working both ways.