AdvanceLipo
It has been noted that some other lipo websites seem to have duplicate pictures, graphics and design. On the News page I placed a small entry noting those sites and clearly stating that it DID NOT PROVE a relationship. I noted only that the duplication was unusual and that there MIGHT be some relation since Bittner had filed some LLC's and was attempting to franchise or otherwise operate other clinics.
Recently, AdvanceLipo contacted me and said, "This is absolutely untrue, DR. BITTNER NOTHING TO DO WITH ADVANCELIPO!!!" and "The before and after pictures on the website are of our clients."
I went back to their site and noted that the banner still had pics that had appeared on the BHL site and on one of his franchise sites (which seems to have since disappeared). On their before and after page all of the original pics had been replaced except for one set. Below are shots of the AdvanceLipo site and the BHL. It is pretty obvious that there is a set of pics that are absolutely identical (note the very unusual panties worn in each).
I wrote back and told them that their claims were indeed untrue and pointed out which pictures were identical. Over the next hour I started checking more pages on the site. When I clicked the link back to the page in question, I received a "page not found" message. This often menas that the page has been removed from the server or the link is broken, it is doubtful that the link was suddenly broken. However, since I still had that page cached I could back up to it. A short while later the link became usable again and the duplicate set of photos had been removed from the site. Of course I had already captured the page in a screen shot.....and still have prints of BHL's before and after pages.
Over the next several hours I received emails from AdvanceLipo containing a variety of explanations:
"We are a respected company that has successfully performed thousands of treatments in San Diego since 2006 and are completely independent of and unconnected to Dr. Bittner. The suggestion that we are a franchise or affiliate or in some way involved with Dr. Bittner is not only completely false, it is damaging to our business and as a result libelous." At no time did I ever claim that the two sites were related...there is no libel. ("In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." -wikipedia) I only noted that I had been given information regarding the sites and that, indeed, there were similarities, duplicate photos, and similar designs. I noted specifically that it did NOT prove relationship, but that there was a POSSIBILITY based on the duplicate photos...all of which is absolutely TRUE. I do find it unusual....although it may be pure coincidence, that both clinics opened their doors in 2006 and both doctors went to UCLA about the same time.
AdvanceLipo further wrote: "I must ask you, why would we have any agreement with him? We’ve done lipo for years in conjunction was many other aesthetic services," Again, for years? it seems to be only 3 years. Although the statement is technically true, I think that most people would agree that "for years" implies a time period long than a mere three years.
Then they wrote: "I can only speculate that maybe during development of the site our designers did a mockup with whatever pictures they could find on the net. Bittner's site and Lipospecialists were the most popular lipo sites at the time and it is possible this caused the pictures issue. That being said, since we've gone live and began promoting the site, that only pictures up are ours. As we have nothing at all to do with Bittner or Darcy, and absolutely nothing to hide, I have given you my best guess how to explain what you may have seen on the site early in development. " Here we have the coup de gras. I only viewed this site around November 2008...within the last three months of this writing. Here is what I find a bit disturbing. DIsregard that the two clinics MAY have some relation.
Any writing or media published on the web is considered to be copyrighted upon publication. To use someone else's artwork or words, you must legally obtain the rights to do so unless you are merely referenceing the material and not inferring that it is your own work. Even though you have obtained rights, it is usually required that you then reference the source of the original work, generally either on the page or in alternate text. So... for a designer, especially of a commercial site, to "borrow" pictures is not legal.... and fairly unethical. Professional designers generally do not publish mock-up sites to the web, they use a testing server or a domain that is not searchable or accessible to the general public......especially if the site contains....er......"borrowed" work. That work...especially when used for such a site as this...is generally formulated to an acceptable format before it is actually published.
I do not know when this site was actually published, but in November 2008, ALL of their "patient pictures" WERE DUPLICATES of those on the BHL site, I only wish I had taken screen shots or printed them. That isw not the salient issue here. Three months later, at least one set still remained. I am just an amature designer, mostly self taught, but even I would never post a picture of someone else's work and claim that I produced it. More importantly, remember that this was not just the logo, it was shots of people that the site claimed were examples of the work they had performed on their own patients. Personally, I do not consider that a "mistake."
I find it unusual that a doctor, with even a two year practice, would not have photos of his own patients to use for even mockup site design.
Furthermore, it concerns me that any doctor.....at any time, for any reason....would ever publish a picture of surgical results and even allude to the fact that it was his own work. I believe doctors should be held to the highest standards. I can't imagine that a doctor paid money to have a site designed and just "did not notice" that the photos showing "patients" before and after...were not of his own patients. At best, it makes me curious about what else he might "miss." Again, just my opinion, a mere speculation, a thought, a wonder, a musing. But if you are going to operate on me, or anyone, I have a right to be concerned about your awareness...and behavior that might question your honesty.
Here you go, taken directly from both sites. I blew up the photo from BHL because it was a printed page from the site and not a screen shot. You should still be able to make out the url in the bottom left corner that appears on any printed page from a site. AdvanceLipo did crop the photos a bit, but this alteration is really not enough to nullify copyright infringement.
| AdvanceLipo site: | Page print from BHL site: |
 |
 |
Come on folks, there is not way in heck that this is a coincidence!.....in my opinion, what do you think?
Rollover each picture to see an enlarged view. You must have popups enabled in your browser. Works best in IE.
