Log in 
New user? RE: Time to Redesign?
Message Details
Posted
7/20/2000; 3:17 PM by "Jim Roepcke"Last Modified
7/20/2000; 3:17 PM by "Jim Roepcke"In Response To
RE: Time to Redesign? (#878)Label
None.Read Count
376
Message Body
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:21:14 GMT, dave rogers wrote:
>I'm chuckling to myself, Jim.
>
>During the recent Napster debate I considered pointing
>out that your site design relies on elements which were
>created by designers at Apple, work that was not your
>own, but which you've appropriated for your own use. I
>think your intent was to celebrate it, sort of as an
>homage maybe. Probably could be considered fair use, but
>I'm not even sure design elements can be copyrighted.
I'm not sure either. I know I certainly wasn't the first to do what
I've done, there are other MacOS X software companies doing the same
things for their sites... http://www.openbase.com/ comes to mind.
Apple's not complaining to me or to them as far as I know, which is
different than the Napster situation where there are artists clearly
complaining, claiming it's not fair use. (whether they're right or
wrong is yet to be determined -- our opinions don't matter much until
the decision is made)
Obviously it's done in homage, I'm obviously not suggesting the design
is my own, that's pretty clear.
It is an interesting point though. One could argue that it's not like
I'm putting up a copy of Mac OS X DP4 on my website for everyone to
download.
I'm glad you brought it up.
>But really, I don't object to it. I think it's a pleasant-
>looking site. I'm not exactly sure I want to embrace Aqua as
>an interface in the MacOS, but I'll worry about that when the
>thing ships.
It looks way nicer "in person" than it does freeze dried like on my
site or in any screenshot -- that's for sure. I'm not sure if you've
seen it live or not... I'm not trying to convice you to like it either,
just to warn you that it's coming whether you like it or not. I've
read (on public sites on the 'net, MOSR probably) that all the Aqua
elements are actually stored in a resource file somewhere so perhaps
there's hope for people who want a different looking UI.
>I just felt that the design elements of your site provoked
>a little bit of cognitive dissonance with respect to your
>view of Napster and its functionality.
It's an interesting tangent, but it's fairly obviously that the
similarities are only skin-deep... the scale and the intent Napster is
obviously greatly different than the scale and intent of having
gel-buttons on my site.
>I'm not trying to fire up that debate again, though.
Up to you. :)
>Change it, keep it. Follow your muse.
Yeah, it's getting a little old, IMO. And since, it's not my original
work as you've stated, perhaps it's better to remove it.
Which is too bad all those people telling me they like it. :( But I
hope they'll like it when there aren't dozens of big graphics to
download just to see a weblog page.
Thanks again for bringing up the fair-use angle -- it was very
interesting to think about that!
Jim
---
Jim Roepcke - jim@roepcke.com
Have Browser, Will Travel
http://jim.roepcke.com/
>I'm chuckling to myself, Jim.
>
>During the recent Napster debate I considered pointing
>out that your site design relies on elements which were
>created by designers at Apple, work that was not your
>own, but which you've appropriated for your own use. I
>think your intent was to celebrate it, sort of as an
>homage maybe. Probably could be considered fair use, but
>I'm not even sure design elements can be copyrighted.
I'm not sure either. I know I certainly wasn't the first to do what
I've done, there are other MacOS X software companies doing the same
things for their sites... http://www.openbase.com/ comes to mind.
Apple's not complaining to me or to them as far as I know, which is
different than the Napster situation where there are artists clearly
complaining, claiming it's not fair use. (whether they're right or
wrong is yet to be determined -- our opinions don't matter much until
the decision is made)
Obviously it's done in homage, I'm obviously not suggesting the design
is my own, that's pretty clear.
It is an interesting point though. One could argue that it's not like
I'm putting up a copy of Mac OS X DP4 on my website for everyone to
download.
I'm glad you brought it up.
>But really, I don't object to it. I think it's a pleasant-
>looking site. I'm not exactly sure I want to embrace Aqua as
>an interface in the MacOS, but I'll worry about that when the
>thing ships.
It looks way nicer "in person" than it does freeze dried like on my
site or in any screenshot -- that's for sure. I'm not sure if you've
seen it live or not... I'm not trying to convice you to like it either,
just to warn you that it's coming whether you like it or not. I've
read (on public sites on the 'net, MOSR probably) that all the Aqua
elements are actually stored in a resource file somewhere so perhaps
there's hope for people who want a different looking UI.
>I just felt that the design elements of your site provoked
>a little bit of cognitive dissonance with respect to your
>view of Napster and its functionality.
It's an interesting tangent, but it's fairly obviously that the
similarities are only skin-deep... the scale and the intent Napster is
obviously greatly different than the scale and intent of having
gel-buttons on my site.
>I'm not trying to fire up that debate again, though.
Up to you. :)
>Change it, keep it. Follow your muse.
Yeah, it's getting a little old, IMO. And since, it's not my original
work as you've stated, perhaps it's better to remove it.
Which is too bad all those people telling me they like it. :( But I
hope they'll like it when there aren't dozens of big graphics to
download just to see a weblog page.
Thanks again for bringing up the fair-use angle -- it was very
interesting to think about that!
Jim
---
Jim Roepcke - jim@roepcke.com
Have Browser, Will Travel
http://jim.roepcke.com/
Replies
| Re: Time to Redesign? ( 7/20/2000 by Greg Pierce ) | |
| on 7/20/00 3:17 PM, Jim Roepcke at jim@roepcke.com wrote: >> .... Probably |
