Unmitigated gall, Part Deux
January 15, 2001 3:36 PM Subscribe
Unmitigated gall, Part Deux...no, it's not déjàvu. Some folks simply have no respect for the work of others.
I found it odd that Zeldman linked to Smug as a well-designed site. The Smug design was simple and clear, but the site is five months overdue for a relaunch. Is this a ghost site? A well-dressed corpse is still a corpse.
Jason
posted by JDC8 at 4:54 PM on January 15, 2001
Jason
posted by JDC8 at 4:54 PM on January 15, 2001
Irony = this quote on orangegroup's website:
"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking." - Henry Ford
posted by kokogiak at 4:57 PM on January 15, 2001
"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking." - Henry Ford
posted by kokogiak at 4:57 PM on January 15, 2001
>I found it odd that Zeldman
>linked to Smug as a well-designed site
>...
>the site is five months overdue
>for a relaunch.
Zeldman's "HTML Hell" article first ran on Adobe's website early last year.
posted by webchick at 5:05 PM on January 15, 2001
>linked to Smug as a well-designed site
>...
>the site is five months overdue
>for a relaunch.
Zeldman's "HTML Hell" article first ran on Adobe's website early last year.
posted by webchick at 5:05 PM on January 15, 2001
I have found the best way to deal with silly requests (jumping dog animated GIF background image!) is to bamboozle the management with technical terms. Sad, but wholy true. Either that or educate them with case-examples (no one can disagree with case examples). No, wait, bamboozle with tech terms. `Parallax scrolling` is always a good one. For example,
"Mamm, that won't work due to the parallax scrolling...chip"
But now that Zeldman mentions it, I have noticed the broken spirit of the webdesigner. It's their own fault, really.
posted by holloway at 7:12 PM on January 15, 2001
"Mamm, that won't work due to the parallax scrolling...chip"
But now that Zeldman mentions it, I have noticed the broken spirit of the webdesigner. It's their own fault, really.
posted by holloway at 7:12 PM on January 15, 2001
(I apologize ... my hurried postings earlier today look vague in hindsight ... )
The crux of the matter is that someone at Orange Digital Media (a <quote>professional</quote> web services outfit) thought it was a good idea to swipe somebody else's work (Zeldman's) without permission or attribution. I guess they thought they wouldn't get caught.
I am always amazed that people think they can get away with stuff like this. I turn up garbage like this all the time. I find it sifting through my site logs, or using a search engine, or sometimes I just stumble across it. My hunch is I'm not alone.
I suppose the lesson here is to practice good Web karma, baby. The Internet has a way of looking out for its own :-).
posted by webchick at 8:52 PM on January 15, 2001
The crux of the matter is that someone at Orange Digital Media (a <quote>professional</quote> web services outfit) thought it was a good idea to swipe somebody else's work (Zeldman's) without permission or attribution. I guess they thought they wouldn't get caught.
I am always amazed that people think they can get away with stuff like this. I turn up garbage like this all the time. I find it sifting through my site logs, or using a search engine, or sometimes I just stumble across it. My hunch is I'm not alone.
I suppose the lesson here is to practice good Web karma, baby. The Internet has a way of looking out for its own :-).
posted by webchick at 8:52 PM on January 15, 2001
The real shocker is that it is Still There. Doesn't anyone at Orange Digital Whatever fucking Read online?
posted by th3ph17 at 8:58 PM on January 15, 2001
posted by th3ph17 at 8:58 PM on January 15, 2001
One of the problems on the web is telling people apart.
Without your admission your gender, race, orientation and views remain a mystery.
When you do 'come out', you have the ability to express all of your hopes and fears.
These words and images are yours and deserve respect. They also deserve to remain yours, unless you give permission to use them.
Agree or disagree with what you see is your choice. Something different is just a click or keystroke away. What has happened here is Theft. It is not a Fair Use excerpt for commentary or criticism. It is a wholesale theft and re-publication without attribution nor permission. It is copyright infringement.
A little more pointed opinion can be found here
posted by headlemur at 9:16 PM on January 15, 2001
Without your admission your gender, race, orientation and views remain a mystery.
When you do 'come out', you have the ability to express all of your hopes and fears.
These words and images are yours and deserve respect. They also deserve to remain yours, unless you give permission to use them.
Agree or disagree with what you see is your choice. Something different is just a click or keystroke away. What has happened here is Theft. It is not a Fair Use excerpt for commentary or criticism. It is a wholesale theft and re-publication without attribution nor permission. It is copyright infringement.
A little more pointed opinion can be found here
posted by headlemur at 9:16 PM on January 15, 2001
Is that page actually linked to from anywhere on the site? Notice the page title ("content") is different from evey other page? Looks like they might have been using Jeffrey's text for a little lorem ipsum dolem action. I do that--I often save a piece I'm interested in to read later, and then when I need a little text to dummy up a layout, I just grab whatever's handy. I'm usually not so stupid as to publish it to my site, though.
posted by rodii at 9:32 PM on January 15, 2001
posted by rodii at 9:32 PM on January 15, 2001
Tragically yes........... It’s under "Company" - "A designer's view" from the front page.
posted by lucien at 10:06 PM on January 15, 2001
posted by lucien at 10:06 PM on January 15, 2001
As of a few moments ago, its still there, but now includes:
"(thank you to all those who wrote to let us know the original author)" ...and credits Mr Zeldman at the top of the page.
posted by normy at 10:32 PM on January 15, 2001
"(thank you to all those who wrote to let us know the original author)" ...and credits Mr Zeldman at the top of the page.
posted by normy at 10:32 PM on January 15, 2001
Uh, that doesn't make it better. It's still copyright violation unless Zeldman gave them permission.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:38 PM on January 15, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:38 PM on January 15, 2001
Adobe owns the copyright. It's up to them to give permission, although the author may arguably maintain some moral rights.
posted by mikel at 11:09 PM on January 15, 2001
posted by mikel at 11:09 PM on January 15, 2001
Orange Media is acting like this is something being passed around daily in e-mails. " the original author" It's very obvious who the original author is and that it is copyrighted and not to be copyed without permission.
posted by thirdball at 12:41 PM on January 16, 2001
posted by thirdball at 12:41 PM on January 16, 2001
thirdball, I had a nice little rant all ready to go that said basically the same thing, but lost it this morning.
Basically, claiming this was some uncredited e-mail they'd gotten is a bullshit excuse, plain and simple. They presented it as their own, by not giving credit (even to "Anonymous" which would have almost been acceptable) they implied that it was their creation.
And Christ, they stole it from Adobe. How stupid do you have to be?
And, really, a web design company where not one person hits Zeldman.com at least once a day? Or even once a week, to scope out his news page and see what interesting things he has to say? (That's the implication of saying author unknown in this case) I just can't believe it.
posted by cCranium at 1:03 PM on January 16, 2001
Basically, claiming this was some uncredited e-mail they'd gotten is a bullshit excuse, plain and simple. They presented it as their own, by not giving credit (even to "Anonymous" which would have almost been acceptable) they implied that it was their creation.
And Christ, they stole it from Adobe. How stupid do you have to be?
And, really, a web design company where not one person hits Zeldman.com at least once a day? Or even once a week, to scope out his news page and see what interesting things he has to say? (That's the implication of saying author unknown in this case) I just can't believe it.
posted by cCranium at 1:03 PM on January 16, 2001
I bet there are lots of web design companies who *never* visit Zeldman (lest I forget thee, Slashdot…). It's a big web out there. A lot of smallish companies mine their little lodes quite happily without ever worrying about Jeffrey or the WaSP or pixel-sizing their CSS. (I have a colleague who can't believe—I mean, flat-out, incredulous-at-my-cluelessness can't believe—I don't make my students read David Siegel, because David Siegel is the man.)
posted by rodii at 8:39 PM on January 17, 2001
posted by rodii at 8:39 PM on January 17, 2001
You think so? I don't know how anyone can be in this industry for a year without hearing about Zeldman, the W3C, WaSP and A List Apart.
I mean, I guess it's true, it is a big web, but that just seems odd. :-)
posted by cCranium at 5:13 AM on January 18, 2001
I mean, I guess it's true, it is a big web, but that just seems odd. :-)
posted by cCranium at 5:13 AM on January 18, 2001
« Older First gay marriage legal, for now | Dubya, Britney and the bare naked truth Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cCranium at 4:36 PM on January 15, 2001