Familiar layout?

December 19, 2002 8:02 AM

Familiar layout?Most of you know Noah Grey, and most of you will also know how much he values his intellectual property. This makes it even sadder when someone goes through the effort of bypassing Noah's 'please don't steal'-script, rips off his design, and even puts his own copyright information in Noah's disclaimer.
Besides the fact that this is morally wrong, is there anything that someone can actually do about this sort of thing? Suing is probably not the best option as that would be very costly and time-consuming, since the owner of this particular design lives in the US, and the 'thief' lives in Europe
posted by Mijnkopthee (72 comments total)

In case 'Harry' takes it offline, this is what the ripoff looks like.
posted by Mijnkopthee at 8:05 AM on December 19, 2002

Did you view the source? The sites are architected in a totally different manner. I'm not suggesting that copying a visual identity is OK, but I've seen much worse examples of outright theft.
posted by machaus at 8:11 AM on December 19, 2002

For the record, the code is pretty much identical, just more elegantly arranged by Noah. (Harry added a bunch of spaces and returns.)
posted by UrbanFigaro at 8:17 AM on December 19, 2002

One can't copyright a design. How can anyone claim the rights to a grey background and 2 pixel black borders?

And seriously, what's the harm in borrowing a bit of code? No one would mistake this hack's work for Noah's - especially given the little DHTML snowflakes.

Rather than insisting that no one use our code, we should strive to make everything "open source". In my code, I encourage all would be thieves to borrow whatever they wish - I ask only that they let me know what they're up to. Surprisingly, I've gotten several messages and links to various sites that have borrowed certain aspects of the design.

Nothing warms my heart more. Imitation breeds flattery.
posted by aladfar at 8:20 AM on December 19, 2002

i tried to come up with some analogy about an ugly guy wearing a swell tuxedo still being an ugly guy, but what's the point?

i mean, is this really hurting noah? anyone who has visited his photograpy site knows that mr grey has a much better eye for design and presentation than this fellow. sure, the structure is the sanme, but what matters is the content. so this ripoff doesn't hurt noah so much as it reveals our european friend as sadly uninspired and unoriginal.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:20 AM on December 19, 2002

Yes, i did look at the source.. The source looks different if you use 'view source'. If you use Internet Explorer's 'save as' option, the process of saving the page changes the HTML (at least on windows IE). If you open the saved HTML in an editor, you'll see that it looks exactly like the html on the ripper's site.
posted by Mijnkopthee at 8:22 AM on December 19, 2002

my bad...
posted by machaus at 8:25 AM on December 19, 2002

Besides the fact that this is morally wrong, is there anything that someone can actually do about this sort of thing?
No, it happens all the time. If you don't want people to steal your crap then don't put it in an easily copyable format (like HTML).

Suing is probably not the best option as that would be very costly and time-consuming, since the owner of this particular design lives in the US, and the 'thief' lives in Europe
It also makes you look like the world's biggest asshole.
posted by PenDevil at 8:27 AM on December 19, 2002

The exact html ripoff is a problem. However I would note: I've used the same 1 image broken into three boxed pieces design effect myself. YEARS AGO. Lots of people have. It's not that profound an idea. And as for the particular use of boxes or colors (the stylistic theme) well......got time for 100,000 lawsuits?
posted by troutfishing at 8:29 AM on December 19, 2002

I think Pirated Sites would probably be a better place to go when it comes to things like this...
posted by Katemonkey at 8:30 AM on December 19, 2002

Gee - staring at my wall, I think: can I copyright my "picture window with white border and salmon-colored wall paint" theme? I did invent it, after all.
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 AM on December 19, 2002

"One can't copyright a design."

Huh? When did this change take place?

"I encourage all would be thieves to borrow whatever they wish"

Which you are free to do. I do the same actually. People are free to use my stuff however they want. But Noah feels differently and he's well within his rights to, both legal and ethical, to do so. This is basic. He's trying to make a living. He asks people to not steal the stuff he's trying to make a living from. Duh.

"is there anything that someone can actually do about this sort of thing?"

A polite yet threatening cease an desist will nip this in the bud. And the guy has to know he's screwed up. Taking something with a copyright on it, stripping the copyright off, and then putting your own copyright on is just wrong. By claiming his own copyright he's telling people they can't steal from him something that he stole from someone else. This is wrong.

One might suspect a coincidence in a basic design, but since the copy is obviously taken directly from Noah, copyright violation is pretty clear.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:34 AM on December 19, 2002

is there anything that someone can actually do about this sort of thing.

Apart from (a) being a big corporation with lots of lawyers, or (b) writing to the guy, or (c) not posting it on the Web, I don't think so. Once you post something, you have to accept that it's digital, and can be accessed by anyone, anywhere, with the proper connection.

But then again I can't really talk as I download stuff from the Web all the time. Heh.g
posted by carter at 8:34 AM on December 19, 2002

And speaking of intellectual property rights and copyright law - does anyone here know how the battle for the patent rights on HYPERLINKS is going? It would be a shame if every hyperlink we ever posted was subject to a fee.
posted by troutfishing at 8:35 AM on December 19, 2002

I think Pirated Sites would probably be a better place to go when it comes to things like this...

Exactly. You can name and shame them publicly. It appears to work.
posted by livingdots at 8:35 AM on December 19, 2002

I think that cases like this usually come down to little guy/big guy principles.

If Microsoft ripped off Noah's page, then there's something to go crazy about, since Microsoft could take the credit, and Noah could be called a fraud.

But when some moron we've never heard of rips it off then, well, he looks like the moron, not Noah. Noah is infinitely more well known on the Internet than Harry, so we all know Harry ripped off Noah, not the other way round.

An' it harm none, do as ye will, or whatever modern witches say.
posted by wackybrit at 8:36 AM on December 19, 2002

"can I copyright my "picture window with white border and salmon-colored wall paint" theme?"

The law says you can if you render it in tangible form. So your photo, poem, web design, painting, etc of your window and wall are all copyrighted as soon as you render them.

One might think copyrighting a photo of a wall is silly. In which case I would refer you this discussion.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:42 AM on December 19, 2002

wow, he's captain porn-linker too...
posted by lotsofno at 8:46 AM on December 19, 2002

y6y6y6: Noah seems to make a living from his photgraphs/merchandise. Not from the layout of his site. Stealing his photos and selling them? Deprives him of income. Stealing his layout and using it on your own personal non-commercial page? Noah can still eat tonight...
posted by PenDevil at 8:48 AM on December 19, 2002

C'mon, taking other peoples websites and editing the source code a bit is how I learned how to "code" in HTML 5-6 years ago. I doubt that I'm the only one.

Anyone remember when the Internet culture actually *encouraged* sharing? And now we're against it?

This guy copied a means of presenting his information, not the information itself. All he owes the originator, if anything, is a credit either in the source code or in small type at the bottom of the page.

It's not like we're going after George Lucas for not calling his trilogy "Joseph Campbell's Star Wars," you know (though his Jar Jar crime is another matter entirely)? My late creative writing professor always reminded us that "there is nothing new under the sun" when we though we were being novel. All creativity is dependent upon the building blocks left by people before us (in fact, it is often not even recognized in the technical world if you can't identify who you borrowed from, since it is a given that you did). There is nothing wrong with this.
posted by BrandonAbell at 8:48 AM on December 19, 2002

"Noah Grey", whoever he is, deserves everything he gets for trying to disable my right-click menu (which contains options other than "pirate site", if he didn't realise). IMHO, of course.
posted by cell at 8:52 AM on December 19, 2002

I can't believe some of you guys actually think this sort of practice is OK. What about when the lesser known person gets ripped off? Thieving assholes who steal other peoples designs are always thieving assholes, no matter how well known the victim is. And it is a violation of copyright laws.
posted by livingdots at 8:53 AM on December 19, 2002

So... I guess he cornered the market on grey backgrounds, a boxy layout, arial fonts and sepia tones, huh?

Shit, I'm gonna have to change my whole design around!
posted by SweetJesus at 8:53 AM on December 19, 2002

Just wanted to add a pepper to the pot.
posted by UrbanFigaro at 9:08 AM on December 19, 2002

"Noah can still eat tonight..."

Most everyone will eat tonight. Including the guy who stole the design. What's your point? That it's okay for people to steal if the theft is from someone who won't go broke? So shoplifting is fine? Theft is fine since no one gets hurt?

"Anyone remember when the Internet culture actually *encouraged* sharing?"

There are plenty of people around here who encourage sharing. Including Matt. Including me. So what? Noah doesn't want to share. He wants to sell. Why is that bad? Everything must be shared? We can't defend our legal rights? I'm glad you enjoy people taking your on-line stuff, I know I do. But it's silly to expect everyone else to feel that way. Especially people trying to make a living by selling their on-line stuff.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:09 AM on December 19, 2002

I can't believe some of you guys actually think this sort of practice is OK.

I don't at all think it's okay, but don't think there's much Noah could do about it, either. Even if it's wrong, and copyrighted, and illegal, and no matter how much you tell your site's visitors it really hurts you if they steal your stuff, if you put it online, you kind of have to assume that somebody might steal it. Until view source is gone from browsers (like others, that's how I learned my HTML tricks too), or hell, until a person can't view his or her internet browser cache, stuff online can purloined easily. It's part of the beast. Good for Creative Commons for at least trying to setup some groundrules for everyone to follow, but now matter how sweetly you say "pretty please," some rotten apple will still spoil the barrel and won't follow CC's licenses like they're supposed to.

I shame the thief for his stupidity, blatant thievery, and utter lack of any imagination or creativity to come up with his own design, but I'm not at all surprised by it.

And embarassingly, *I* was using those DHTML snowflakes in 1999. So he's stealin' from me, too.
posted by gramcracker at 9:17 AM on December 19, 2002

It would seem to me that the idea of copyrighting design elements is not possible, or at least not at all easy. If it were, I am sure Apple would have been all over the PC companies "borrowing" design elements of the iMac and the iPod, Nabisco would be after every single store brand cracker product that copies its design for Ritz crackers, swanky garment manufacturers would be after Walmart and Target for selling cheap knockoffs of their products, and on and on.

y6y6y6:
He's [Noah] trying to make a living. He asks people to not steal the stuff he's trying to make a living from.

I fail to see how this affects Noah in any way financially. If the guy was selling illegal copies of his photos, this would make more sense. Of course, I can't read Dutch, so maybe he is.

And I know this has been discussed ad nauseum before, but for the love of Mike, I wish he'd drop that f**** irritating right-click javascript thing already. If he wants to inform people not to copy his stuff, that's fine; the warning should be in large blinking type at the top of the page. If he doesn't like way that looks, too bad. Crippling my browser does not give me the urge to buy anything from him.

On preview, go PenDevil and Brandon!
posted by deadcowdan at 9:19 AM on December 19, 2002

I have no problem pulling any image down to my machine. I seem to remember when this fad of "protecting" code/images started -- and promptly died -- a few years back, though yes, some people still do it. It's something we should pity them for. It's them not understanding the medium. It's not about owning it. It's the same freakin battle with music as with art. If I really want it, I'll buy it, if not, I won't.

Even though I personally don't see any Anti-Theivery Technology in place on this website (or experience it cause I'm on a mac) it just makes me NOT want to get to know this Noah Grey character. There's nothing anyone can do, to PROTECT information/code/images that people can view in a browser. That's the whole freakin point - to exchange information. You can't say - hey - THESE ones and zeros are for sharing but THESE aren't.

It's about the future of how we record ourselves as humanity, not whether or not the PC has it's right click disabled. Besides - anyone who can actually VIEW the image can just take a screenshot if they want, no right-click needed.

It's funny, I'd imagine no one here would even have known of this other guy had this post not been made. Katemonkey and livingdots are so right.

Long ass preview... ughs, why is it so SLOOOOOOOOW.
posted by folktrash at 9:23 AM on December 19, 2002

A polite yet threatening cease an desist will nip this in the bud.

I have a bridge in New York City to sell you!
posted by mischief at 9:23 AM on December 19, 2002

There's little on the web more tacky, insulting, and annoying than that right click disable java script thing. Even midis and animated gifs of dogs pooping have more class.

y6y6y6, I've always meant to comment on your generosity and great photography skills. I downloaded 3 of your flower pics, printed them on high gloss photography paper, framed them in simple unmatted black frames, and hung them on my wall. I get compliments on them all the time. I tell everyone to visit your site for more. I've also used one as wallpaper - an image from Ireland. Thanks.
posted by iconomy at 9:27 AM on December 19, 2002

I can't believe some of you guys actually think this sort of practice is OK. What about when the lesser known person gets ripped off? Thieving assholes who steal other peoples designs are always thieving assholes, no matter how well known the victim is.

Ah, but the typical MeFier often tends to hold the Robin Hood attitude that stealing from the rich is not as morally wrong as stealing from the poor.
posted by wackybrit at 9:28 AM on December 19, 2002

First a couple of things I think Noah is much more worried about people stealing the images off of which he makes his living than anything else.

In terms of his code. He obviously has no problem sharing that since he's the creater of Grey Matter a most excellent and widely used opensource web log.

Finally I don't think this manner of theft is so much illegal as just unethical. I mean jeez this guy could have at least changed a color or something. I mean I looked at tons of code to learn in the early days but I didn't steal the page outright. Also this type of thing can and is easily solved without lawyers. Firing up shitload of webheads and having them innundate someone's inbox usually does the trick also a lot of sysadmins/webhosts etc hate this kind of thing and will threaten to take a site down with one or two well worded emails
posted by bitdamaged at 9:32 AM on December 19, 2002

Livingdots, I don't think anybody is wanting to give this guy a medal for taking somebody's site layout - it's just that we (or maybe just I) don't think he should be drawn and quartered for it. It's tacky, but that's about it. If it's copyright infringement, it shouldn't be. If he's selling services using that design as a major feature, then that's another issue for me entirely. . .
posted by BrandonAbell at 9:34 AM on December 19, 2002

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. You'd think an artist would relate to that.

His work is derivative of influences he came under during his formative years as an artist. One way to improve technically as an artist is to see something and try to reproduce it.

I wonder who the first guy was that came out with a company newsletter with three columns and a big piece of clip art in the center. Surely he's sued every corporation since.

And of course newspaper layouts are all different. No common influence there.

Another great art quote is the possibly Picasso statement that "Good artists borrow, great artists steal".

If you are afraid that someone "borrowing" design elements of yours is somehow going to financially impact your creative endeavors, you are either not very confident in your artistic abilities or your creative fountains run very shallow indeed.

Yes artists should get paid for their work etc ad nauseam. I don't think your great talents suffer any because of lesser-talented copycats.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:36 AM on December 19, 2002

"It's them not understanding the medium."

I think it is beyond naive to say that Noah Grey doesn't understand the medium. I'll assume you don't know who he is. Between his photo site and his open source software it is arguable that he's done more than 99% of the people here to create the medium.

Oh, that's right, everyone has forgotten that Noah Grey is an open source programmer. [sheesh]

"I have a bridge in New York City to sell you!"

I use to maintain copyright on all my stuff. During that time I had several thefts of my design (it really used to be better than it is now, really). When people know they stole something, a cease and desist will make them wet their pants. That's just my experience.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:40 AM on December 19, 2002

Veering off topic. I've been downloading and printing his photos for years. (Kidding!) Could you explain to a Mac user what exactly is disabled on his site?

Nah, forget about it.

Claiming copyright infringement on design is a very tricky. Seems to me I've chimed in on this subject recently...where, where, where?
posted by Dick Paris at 9:41 AM on December 19, 2002

Especially people trying to make a living by selling their on-line stuff.

y6y6y6, by sharing, I was referring to his site design, not the pictures. If this guy was taking those and calling them his own I would have a problem with it. In fact, if he was taking his site design *and calling it his own* I would have a problem with it. I just don't think you should be able to restrict people from using a particular means of presenting information.

Should I have to pay royalties or be innundated with extreme snarkification everytime I use MLA or APA format when writing a research paper? How about when I wear a blue sport coat and red tie when giving a speech? It's not the presentation that matters, it's the content.

Once again, I think wholesale taking of other people's work without credit is bad form, but if it is not claimed as my own work or if I am not using it to compete with the author in any way, and there is no confusion between which site is which, I don't see the crime.
posted by BrandonAbell at 9:51 AM on December 19, 2002

From Pirated Sites:

Noah Grey v. Anad Vit Patel
Noah Grey v. feline.org
Noah Grey v. Possibly Maybe
Noah Grey v. Sarah Vitelli
Noah Grey v. SC African Village
Noah Grey v. Tironis
Noah Grey v. Vlaamse Ju-Jitsu Federatie
Noah Grey v. Zimp

Harry isn't shy about who he "borrows" from. Soon there will be a "I Stole from Noah" button, banner, and Yahoo Group.
posted by ?! at 10:00 AM on December 19, 2002

"printed them on high gloss photography paper, framed them in simple unmatted black frames, and hung them on my wall."

[off topic]
You rock. This is why I love having people take my stuff. Let me know if you want a high-res print. The tif files I print from at home are 16-bit/200+ meg. Much better than those overly compressed jpegs.
[/off topic]

The fact that many here think the design isn't stealing, or that it shouldn't be stealing, or that it might be stealing but so what, doesn't change the fact that the law supports Noah and ethically he's on solid ground if he wants to keep people from stealing it.

It's his. He asks people not to take it. Just because you think it's flattery won't make it so. and even if it is flattery, that doesn't make it right.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:04 AM on December 19, 2002

"*and calling it his own*"

I thought the thief placed a copyright notice on the page. Was I wrong about that? He took Noah's copyright off and put his on. Right?
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:07 AM on December 19, 2002

I think the real question is why was this posted? Not to pick on you specifically Mijnkopthee, but things like this happen every day to many different people. Why is Noah Grey special enough to deserve his own post?

Between his photo site and his open source software it is arguable that he's done more than 99% of the people here to create the medium.

Greymatter isn't a bad piece of software, but what's has he done that's so special for photography? Maybe it's not my style, but most of his photography seems photoshopped to hell. Nothing looks natural. The colors are way too saturated in most of the images, to the point of being almost hyper-real. There's no heart in his images. Everything is too perfect, too edited. Nothing raw. He also tends to use a soft-focus on all his portrait images, which unless you're trying to photograph for people magazine, I think you should stay away from.

As I said, maybe it's just me, but I don't think there's anything too spectacular about his images.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:16 AM on December 19, 2002

I don't find it particularly egregious. If you copy someone else's design, you will be judged as derivative and uncreative. Which may motivate some to do their own designs--or significantly modify "found' designs before using them--and may be perfectly acceptable to others, who may be more focused on content than on design. It is good for the web as a whole for those with design talent to be pushed to continually come up with new things if they want to stay ahead of the curve.

Hell, both of these guys are using my basic color scheme, and I've never seen either site before.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 AM on December 19, 2002

Yeah, the law supports Noah. The law should change. As others have said before, I learned how to code HTML buy stealing from other sites. I still learn that way.

I learned design by stealing from other designers. I still learn that way.

If there's money involved, then I can maybe see why the creator has an obligation to try to protect what they've created as long as the law is there to support them, but the freaking laws should change.

Do we want more people expressing themselves or less? Provided we there are good editors out there to filter it for us, then I saw more. Even if there aren't, then still more. Obviously more. How are these people supposed to figure out how to do that if they can't stand on the shoulders of giants? Trying to claim ownership of what you've created (which is almost certainly derivative of what everybody who came before you created) makes you an asshole. Doesn't matter if the law is on your side. You're a legal asshole.
posted by willnot at 10:31 AM on December 19, 2002

So why should I know who Noah Grey is? And that stupid Javascript is evil and easily circumvented.
posted by salmacis at 10:58 AM on December 19, 2002

I learned design by stealing from other designers. I still learn that way.

We learn about techniques from each other, but how we use those techniques (expression) should be our own.

Since the "thief" in question is so young, I wonder if he had to make a website as a class assignment. That was the case with the student who stole Derek's design a few years ago, I think. In that case it's not just theft, it's cheating.
posted by whatnot at 10:59 AM on December 19, 2002

y6y6y6: i had no idea who mr. grey was before this post. if he's the grey matter author/programmer then my comment about not understanding the medium seems a bit harsh, and i feel mildly embarrassed about it, however, trying to "protect" material PUT ON THE WEB is a futile effort and, even upon reconsideration, I stand by my comment.
posted by folktrash at 11:04 AM on December 19, 2002

I thought the thief placed a copyright notice on the page. Was I wrong about that? He took Noah's copyright off and put his on. Right?

I'm not conversant in his language; I don't know. Like I said before, if he's claiming ownership of the design it's wrong, if he's claiming ownership of the content that is new, then fine.
posted by BrandonAbell at 11:04 AM on December 19, 2002

"trying to "protect" material PUT ON THE WEB is a futile effort"

The issue isn't protecting. The issue is enforcing copyright. Apples and oranges. Can we agree that perhaps Mr Grey is savvy enough to know that people can grab his content if they really want to? Can we agree that Mr Grey probably isn't seriously thinking he has thwarted anyone? More than anything else his minimal efforts to "protect" the content are an indication that people should respect the copyright.

Yes. Trying to keep people from getting at the files directly is futile. We all agree about that. Copyright enforcement is the issue. I say design can be and is copyrighted, and that protection is reasonable. Others will always disagree no matter what I say. Nothing wrong with that.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:32 AM on December 19, 2002

Y6y6y6: Yes, he replaced noah's copyright with his own.

SweetJesus: I know this stuff happens all the time. It even happened to me a few times too, and i usually felt somewhere between pissed off and flattered. I think the mail reason i posted is that i really don't understand why people do this. Sure, most people pick well-designed sites apart to see how it works, most people get inspired by things they've seen before, that's all good.. What's wrong is just copying stuff and passing it off as your own. And i can't imagine why he thought this would be a good idea: "Yeah, probably nobody knows this Noah dude, who wrote this little piece of software. I think i'll just nick his design and nobody will ever find out.."
posted by Mijnkopthee at 12:04 PM on December 19, 2002

I for one would love someone to explain why it is Noah has such an incredibly rabid fan base. I've never understood that. Not only has he not done anything spectacular (overrated pictures, overcomplicated software) but his weblog was the most whiny thing I ever read, complete with sycophantic legions posting comments praising every step of his way. I just don't get it.
posted by norm at 12:07 PM on December 19, 2002

There's no heart in his images. Everything is too perfect, too edited. Nothing raw.

Noah's trying to show the world as he sees it, like any photographer. He's seeking archetypes; he wants to capture the flower or the sunset. Given his background, which you can read about on his site if you're interested, I think his pursuit of beauty for its own sake, for the ideal, displays quite a bit of heart. It'd be easy Noah to see only the negativity, the ugliness, the rawness in the world. That he doesn't is something of a paradox, and a happy one.

Of course, de gustibus non disputandum. If his work is not to your taste, that's fine. The work, in the end, must stand on its own. Personally, I often find his photographs breathtaking, though I'll admit that on the whole I find his portraits somewhat weaker than his other work.
posted by kindall at 12:25 PM on December 19, 2002

it's no different than copying a painting and passing it off as your own. as a designer myself I know a lot of work can go into a project, whether you get paid for it or not. there's nothing wrong with borrowing and reworking code for your own ends but if something is a blatant rip off, one can't help but feel cheated.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:38 PM on December 19, 2002

Noah's trying to show the world as he sees it, like any photographer. He's seeking archetypes; he wants to capture the flower or the sunset. Given his background, which you can read about on his site if you're interested, I think his pursuit of beauty for its own sake, for the ideal, displays quite a bit of heart. It'd be easy Noah to see only the negativity, the ugliness, the rawness in the world. That he doesn't is something of a paradox, and a happy one.

Maybe it just that I see nothing separating his work from any other artist out there. When I look at his work, it screams "Hallmark Card!!!!" or "motivational Poster!!!!". It doesn't scream art. I'm not trying to belittle the guy, and I'm not saying I could do better (I would certainly have a much different style...), but I don't he's worthy of the let-me-fall-over-my-self-to-praise-your-work kind of response he gets.

As for his mental problems, well, I feel bad for him. I don't think it should have any influence on how people judge his art, though. There have been many photographers who have had problems with mental illness, and still produce brilliant, thought-provoking art. Check out Diane Arbus, who had a long history of mental issues, was homeless for a long period of time, and committed suicide in 1971. She also produced some great unsettling images.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:50 PM on December 19, 2002

Trying to claim ownership [...] of what you've created makes you an asshole.

WTF?! How did Noah Grey end up being the asshole here? You wouldn't say that if you'd had spent a month or two creating an original layout and then publish it only to find that someone else takes credit for your blood, sweat and tears a couple of days later. I take pride in creating original looking websites, and let me tell you, it's not easy. It takes some serious creative thinking, and I don't like it when leeches like this guy suck the creative juices out of people like Noah. He didn't just borrow "design elements" or find inspiration in Noah's site; he basically just stole everything and then slapped his own copyright information on it. That is totally reprehensible! Moreover, it is totally unnecessary. You don't have to steal or wait until you get that red belt in CSS code-fu. There are lots of good free tutorials, layouts and helpful people out there.
posted by livingdots at 12:51 PM on December 19, 2002

I for one would love someone to explain why it is Noah has such an incredibly rabid fan base.

How can I put this in a way which won't offend someone.. I can't, so here goes anyway.

Noah openly tells the story of how he has had trouble dealing with the world, how he has shut himself away, and how he has suffered from mental illness.

It is natural for people to be more sympathetic to people who are down on their luck, whether they've achieved more than anyone else or not. You might feel sorry for a guy in a wheelchair whose wife just died.. but he might be a total asshole really. Whereas you might be indifferent to the smiley 'always gets all the luck but is genuinely nice' guy.

That's why I think he has such a strong backing. An underdog is almost always guaranteed one irrespective of other merits. (That said, Noah does seem to be a genuinely caring guy who wouldn't hurt a fly, but I still believe his previous openness about his weaknesses have compelled people to feel sorry for him and to support him.)
posted by wackybrit at 1:11 PM on December 19, 2002

willnot wrote:
Trying to claim ownership of what you've created (which is almost certainly derivative of what everybody who came before you created) makes you an asshole.

I'm actually astonished that someone who has (according to the resume on your website) made a living thanks to creative expression (writing, graphic design, etc.) would express such a belief.

I'm a writer. I own the works that I spend hours/days/weeks/etc. creating. Artists, writers, designers, etc own the works of art, designs, etc that they create. While there's nothing wrong with mimicking to learn, and while there's certainly nothing wrong with making your influences apparent, there's certainly something wrong with outright theft of another person's work, complete with the claim that it's -your- work.

How is someone who is trying to protect their claim to their own work an asshole? And how does that stated belief affect your own outlook about your creative work?
posted by dryad at 1:18 PM on December 19, 2002

I'm not sure livingdots. How is Noah deliberately disabling browser functionality any different from the RIAA member companies disabling music discs. You seemed to see that They were assholes.

I simply extrapolated from the fact that Noah does that to the idea he might have a problem with this guy taking his design. Maybe he's cool with it, but clearly others aren't, and I'm consistent in believing that's a pretty asinine way to approach art.

On preview my stuff is work for hire. Other's have "stolen" things I've done just as I've stolen things I've done. Art is a synthesis. There is nothing original, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and will negatively impact future art.
posted by willnot at 1:23 PM on December 19, 2002

"I don't [think] he's worthy of the let-me-fall-over-my-self-to-praise-your-work kind of response he gets."

He only gets this sort of praise from his fans. They are only his fans because they really like his work. Because they are fans they heap praise on him.

So what are you saying?:

1) His fans are idiots and they have no business judging what they like.
2) You want people whose judgement you criticize to tell you something else you'll criticize.
3) You are very bored/jealous/perfect and feel the need to go on an "it's not art" crusade.

???

He has fans. They like it. You don't. What could be easier to understand?
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:25 PM on December 19, 2002

He only gets this sort of praise from his fans. They are only his fans because they really like his work. Because they are fans they heap praise on him.

So what are you saying?:

What I'm saying is that I think he receives this praise not so much because his photography is terrific, but because no one want's to criticize his art because of his mental condition. No one want's to be seen as the asshole, insulting this guy's work.

On the other hand, I don't care about his personal life/medical issues. If you're trying to be a professional artist, people have the right to criticize you.

1) His fans are idiots and they have no business judging what they like.

I'm not saying his fans are idiots. They can like whatever they want, and heap gooey amounts of praise on Noah as much as they want. But taking criticism, and learning from it is a huuuuuuuuge part of being a photographer. I simply don't see any criticism on his site. Whether it's because no one want's to insult him, as I said above, or another reason - I don't know.

2) You want people whose judgement you criticize to tell you something else you'll criticize.

Uh, ok... I'm not sure I understand this point. Can you expound on it?

3) You are very bored/jealous/perfect and feel the need to go on an "it's not art" crusade.

Please. I know exactly what art is, and I know what composes a good photograph when I see it. I've grown up my whole life around photography. Both of my parents are photographers, my father having been a professional for 20 years. I grew up with a dark room in my basement. I've taken art history classes, and photography classes in college. I have more of a photographic background than most people. This is why I tend to pick up on nitpicky things like this.

Take a look at the critiques at photo.net, which is a GREAT photography site. Maybe then you'll understand what I'm talking about.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:47 PM on December 19, 2002

SweetJesus: Very true. Being critical is critical to an artist's development.

After looking at Noah's work, he seems like a passable photographer. More of a journeyman. I think he should be able to put food on the table selling his work as royalty free stock art to an image library.

He gets paid and then doesn't have to worry about protecting his copyright.

He would make a fine industrial photog. I'm afraid I'm in the corner of others though in not seeing anything particular intriguing or special about his work.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I bet some people make very comfortable livings photographing coat hangers and brillo pads for Wal-Mart circulars. I'd love to have that job.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:58 PM on December 19, 2002

NO NO NO NO NO! Noah Grey is a fraud and his photos are nothing more than the dribble that falls from the mouths of ants eating domesticate cheeses!

sorry, i just thought that i would be the asshole to make the comment that has no substance, no thought behind it and does nothing to contribute to the nature of the discussion.
posted by Stynxno at 2:02 PM on December 19, 2002

"Take a look at the critiques at photo.net"

I spend lots of time at photo.net. I like it. The critiques there are mostly crap. The 10% that are good are very good. While looking at the photos is a good way to be exposed to new ideas and learn from masters, the critiques are laughable. Half the comments are just people sucking up in hopes that you'll give them a good rating. Most of the rest contradict each other.

While I may be stupid on the topic, I doubt artists would gain anything from that sort of thing.

"I know exactly what art is, and I know what composes a good photograph"

Well. I see. Good for you. Seems to me that takes all the fun out of it, but that's just me. I grew up around photography and I've read stacks of books on it. I love photography. I hope I never decide I know what art is. Or more to the point, what it isn't.

If people like Noah's work and want to buy it for it's artistic merit. Good for him. If they want to buy it because they feel sorry for him. Good for them. If you want to diss everyone involved for both reasons...... Well, I just don't see how that helps anyone but you.

Personally I don't think Noah's work is all that great. Some are incredible. Most are so so at best. That's just my opinion. And I think it would be silly to try and make a point out of that.

"Do people like what you do? Do you get paid for what you do? Then tell Bill I said, "Have a Coke and shut the fuck up!"
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:39 PM on December 19, 2002

Please. I know exactly what art is

Woah. Art's definable and objective now?
posted by gramcracker at 2:51 PM on December 19, 2002

Please. I know exactly what art is

Woah. Art's definable and objective now?


Don't missuse my quote. I said I know what art is, and I know what composes a good photograph. I never said that his photographs aren't art. If you want to be didactic, a cup of coffee is art. A fish is art. This web site is art.

What I said was I didn't think his photographs were all that special. I still don't.

While I may be stupid on the topic, I doubt artists would gain anything from that sort of thing. (referring to critiques)

Critiquing is a major part of being a photographer. Major, major, major part. This point was beat into me in my photography classes. absolutely essential. While maybe it doesn't come out on the web the way one would like, if you participate in a real critique with other photographers it is very helpful to your work. I think just about any professional photographer would agree with me. It's a way of comparing techniques and having someone with an objective point of view telling you what they think.

There are hundreds of little tiny decisions that go into making a photograph. Lighting, angle, f.stop, shutter speed, film speed, lens, flash settings, distance, composure, etc. Critiquing isn't about telling people what they did wrong, it's more about helping people to understand what they can do to make a photograph better.

Seems to me that takes all the fun out of it, but that's just me. I grew up around photography and I've read stacks of books on it. I love photography. I hope I never decide I know what art is. Or more to the point, what it isn't.

Again, I never said his photographs weren't art. And this isn't me talking trash about someone's vacation shots, or amateur photography. This guy is trying to make a living, and referring to himself as a professional photographer. If he's a professional, then he needs to learn to stand up to criticism.

On second thought, I don't even know why I'm bringing him up personally. He's not responding to my criticism with personal attacks and the like. I'm sure he either wouldn't care, or would have thick enough skin to blow it off.

If people like Noah's work and want to buy it for it's artistic merit. Good for him. If they want to buy it because they feel sorry for him. Good for them. If you want to diss everyone involved for both reasons...... Well, I just don't see how that helps anyone but you

Yeah, how dare I. Someone's (who obviously everyone has heard of before today) site was posted on Metafilter, and I had the audacity to say "I don't think his photographs are really all that great". Jesus Christ, cut me a break. This is the real world. Don't take it personal. Glean what you can off the top, and try and use it to make your work better.

(Apparently, judging from some of the comments posted in the thread, Noah is some sort of a-list blogger, or whatever it's called these days. I'd wager that if someone else's site was posted as the link, this thread would have been meta-talked and deleted in about six seconds for failure to follow guidelines, or some other excuse.)
posted by SweetJesus at 3:41 PM on December 19, 2002

Gak. I am an idiot. I bashed Photo.net. But I was thinking of Photosig.com.

Duh. Photo.net is much better. Critiques there are much more useful.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:55 PM on December 19, 2002

Why should design be copyrightable? Few would argue that someone should be free to take a Monet painting and pass it off as their own original work, but should Monet have been able to copyright impressionism and keep all others from creating in that style? It is this recent impulse to let people "protect" style and form that has put us in the ever-tightening straitjacket in which content and function is inhibited.

Copyright the content of your website if you so desire; what color you make it, or how many boxes you draw upon the screen may represent creative, idiosyncratic, and marvellously aesthetic choices, but ultimately they mean no more than what color you choose to paint your car, and no one has the right to deny "red" to the rest of us.
posted by rushmc at 5:34 PM on December 19, 2002

If you ask me, anyone who puts a right-click stopper on their site should immedialy have all of their content stolen.
posted by delmoi at 6:44 PM on December 19, 2002

I put up my blog using Greymatter, so thank you Noah for giving thousands of people the ability to make their sites and learn HTML without having to use overly simplistic templates. Thanks for making it free.

Thanks for sharing your work online, and telling your stories about how you are using the web to achieve your dream of becoming a professional photographer.

Don't blame you at all for not wanting your images taken and used without your permission. Personally, I am amazed at what's been written here. The stuff attacking you personally for no reason. The stuff saying that you have no right to feel the way you do.

Very dissapointed in Metafilter.
posted by xammerboy at 7:11 PM on December 19, 2002

Well said rush.

One must be careful though with the use of patented blues. 8)
posted by Dick Paris at 1:28 AM on December 20, 2002

I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long without anyone mentioning the word:

PLAGIARISM

That is, as the dictionary defines it, "to take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person) as one's own".

It's one thing to be inspired by a design and to create a new design based on the source of the inspiration, but just reusing the design without any modifications is plagiarism, a very shameful act. If you get caught plagiarizing stuff professionally, you jeopardize your career. 'Harry' is fortunate that he's an amateur.

It has nothing to do with 'sharing', this issue is not comparable to swapping MP3s.

And disabling right-clicking almost ranks with spam and pop-ups as being annoying.
posted by blamb at 9:25 AM on December 20, 2002

How is Noah deliberately disabling browser functionality any different from the RIAA member companies disabling music discs. You seemed to see that They were assholes.

You're not fooling anyone. These are two completely different things, and you know it. I called RIAA (their members, by implication) assholes for selling me unmarked corrupt CDs that crashed my computer. Did you have to pay Noah Grey to visit his site? No. Were you even commenting on the fact that he had "disabled browser functionality" when you said, "Trying to claim ownership [...] of what you've created makes you an asshole." No, you didn't.

There is nothing original, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and will negatively impact future art.

So, you are saying that Dali wasn't original, simply because he wasn't the first surrealist? Even a child could see a distinct difference between a painting made by Dali and one made by fellow surrealist Miro. And exactly how does copying someone else's work, and presenting it your own, help the progress of art? I disagree with you on that one, and I know most art schools and critics disagree with you as well.
posted by livingdots at 12:21 PM on December 20, 2002

If you don't want your precious design, art, etc. stolen, then don't put it online. It's pretty straight-forward. There are many other mediums available that are more "secure" (i.e. not digital and therefore more difficult to copy). If you post something on the web you should be more than ready to accept the fact that someone else might want it. After all, just by looking at a site you are downloading all the info onto your computer. Although such a blatant rip-off is tacky, there's not much point in getting all worked up over it.
posted by twos at 3:41 PM on December 21, 2002