New Detroit Art Deco Website

Hello. I've been a visitor to this site since 1999 but don't post often. I have a [[useless) degree in architecture and I'm now back in college for web design. So naturally my first website for class is architecture related.

My favorite style is Art Deco and I wanted to create a site dedicated to Detroit's buildings. Please visit and let me know what you think. I'm new to this so it might be a bit glitchy. The images are probably too big so it's a bit slow to load. Also it's a bit simple, but it's my first effort.

www.detroitartdeco.com

As I mentioned on the home page this site was originally created for a class, so the layout and text are mine but the images are the result of frantic late night google searches. We were told it's okay for educational purposes to find and use images. But I decided to put the site online for a little while for all the Detroit architecture fans who frequent this site and who have encouraged my interest in the city and its buildings over the years. But if anyone recognizes their photo and greatly objects to my using it, just let me know either via PM here or to the email in the site's footer and I will either replace the image or give you credit in the text.

Thanks everyone, and be kind.

I highly encourage everyone to take a looksee, he/she has done a great job on the assignment and I look forward to seeing some of the more obscure examples of Art Deco found amongst the residential housing stock and small shops found throughout the different parts of the city. Thanks for sharing Karmic you did a superb job, the historical content you list to describe the buildings you've chosen is very interesting.

Great Work! So neat, and its quality material, but short enough that it won't scare away people. Nice job.

Just got a glimpse of the website...looks nice, so will explore more later...please check the spelling of Albert Kahn!!

Very nice KarmicCurse... a few glitches on the Guardian Building history though... MichCon had owned the building since at least the late 1970s [[when the skyway between it and One Woodward Ave. went in)... and the renovation by MichCon was done in the early 1980s [[circa 1983).

Also, I do not believe that the SmithGroup ever purchased the building... they were only tenants that had offices in the former banking hall.

There are a number of small manufacturing plants located on Grinnell Street on Detroit's East side near City Airport. About one-half dozen to a dozen were
constructed in the Art Deco style. Several of them appear to be unused at
present. Why was the Art Deco style so popular on Grinnell Street?
Thanks

Thanks everyone. I will make those corrections over the next few days. So it's Kahn and not Khan as in "Wrath of".

I took a quick look at the code and that looks fine. There are a few things you can do to clean it up and make it a little simpler and easier to edit. If you define some css for the body, the body will always get that. Then if you give the body a class, it will get that stuff too, and if any of it conflicts with the body, the class will override it. So for the body you have the background color as #990000. Then for all those body classes you also have the color as #990000, but the body was already that color to begin with. Anyway, what this means is that if something should be the same between all of those different body classes, you can include it once for the body and then you don't have to redefine it for each of the classes. This way if you want to change the color a little you can without retyping it a million times. But that's not a big deal, and without looking too closely at anything it looks like your code is fine.


I think the main thing to think about is the design itself. Your site kinda looks like it's from the 90s, with the tiled background and beveled borders and stuff. It's just missing some animated gifs. I'm sure you've seen plenty of beautifully designed architecture books. Your job is to make a beautifully designed architecture website. The principles of print and web design are basically the same. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

Hello. I've been a visitor to this site since 1999 but don't post often. I have a [[useless) degree in architecture and I'm now back in college for web design. So naturally my first website for class is architecture related.

My favorite style is Art Deco and I wanted to create a site dedicated to Detroit's buildings. Please visit and let me know what you think. I'm new to this so it might be a bit glitchy. The images are probably too big so it's a bit slow to load. Also it's a bit simple, but it's my first effort.

www.detroitartdeco.com

As I mentioned on the home page this site was originally created for a class, so the layout and text are mine but the images are the result of frantic late night google searches. We were told it's okay for educational purposes to find and use images. But I decided to put the site online for a little while for all the Detroit architecture fans who frequent this site and who have encouraged my interest in the city and its buildings over the years. But if anyone recognizes their photo and greatly objects to my using it, just let me know either via PM here or to the email in the site's footer and I will either replace the image or give you credit in the text.

Thanks everyone, and be kind.

---

Haven't read it all yet but noticed a small typo under Guardian Bldg. In sentence number to you have is is and I believe you mean it is. Very nice job. K

Geez, talk about typos. I meant sentence number 2, not "to." Sorry. K

Credit the photographers, and link to their websites, whether or not they ask you to. You can do a reverse image search through Google and find your old sources easily enough.

nicely done, love the photos and the history. I'm use to seeing photos of the outside of these buildings, incredible to see some of the interior work. Thank you for posting.

As I'm learning more web tools [[specifically JQuery and Bootstrap) I have reloaded and revamped the site entirely. I hope the background doesn't make it too cluttered. I was going for a Gatsby kind of look. Hopefully the interaction feels a little more modern.

"This site was initially created for a web design class. The text and layout are mine, but the photographs are not. For education purposes we were allowed to use photographs found online. I decided to put the site online for a while for architecture and history buffs. If anyone objects to my use of their photographs, please simply email me and I will either remove them or better yet give you credit and a link to your site."

A disclaimer does NOT change the fact that you have stolen work on your website. There are at least two of my shots that specifically say "for HistoricDetroit.org" on them that appear on the site. I appreciate and understand using the work for educational purposes, but when it goes live and you post on a forum like this it is no longer educational and you are actively stealing work. The guy who runs Historic Detroit asks if he can use photos and people submit their photos to be included on his website. Technically you are stealing content from him as well.

I don't know about the other photos, but mine clearly include my name in a watermark which means you could have sought me out and asked for inclusion which would have been appropriate. It is nice that you are willing to remove the work of photographers if they ask, but you are benefiting from the fact that 99% of the photographers you have lifted from wont ever stumble upon your site or know that you have stolen their work. I would appreciate the removal of my work and would strongly suggest taking the site down until you find a way to get content that doesn't involve theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

Hello. I've been a visitor to this site since 1999 but don't post often. I have a [[useless) degree in architecture and I'm now back in college for web design. So naturally my first website for class is architecture related.

My favorite style is Art Deco and I wanted to create a site dedicated to Detroit's buildings. Please visit and let me know what you think. I'm new to this so it might be a bit glitchy. The images are probably too big so it's a bit slow to load. Also it's a bit simple, but it's my first effort.

www.detroitartdeco.com

As I mentioned on the home page this site was originally created for a class, so the layout and text are mine but the images are the result of frantic late night google searches. We were told it's okay for educational purposes to find and use images. But I decided to put the site online for a little while for all the Detroit architecture fans who frequent this site and who have encouraged my interest in the city and its buildings over the years. But if anyone recognizes their photo and greatly objects to my using it, just let me know either via PM here or to the email in the site's footer and I will either replace the image or give you credit in the text.

Thanks everyone, and be kind.

---

Why not build a facebook page for discussion & members to post photos of AD in the motorcity......???

Kinda make one wonder if all the ancestors of the photographers of the photos Burton's has displayed could request payment.

Then it goes deeper,if one enters a building illegally and takes a picture,can that picture,in theory one taken while in the commission of a crime,be used and enforced in a for profit situation.

Then one also has the bulk photo copyright option.

Does he have a paid site where he is profiting from others work or is he doing something for the benefit of all for educational purposes and promotes the city as a whole in a positive way.

^No, I'm not getting paid at all for this.
Southen, of course I will remove your pics if you want. Can you just tell me which ones they are? Would you prefer I credit you in the caption and the resources page and link to you somewhere?

Payment or not it is still theft if you are openly displaying work that you did not receive permission for.

One is of the Waterboard Building at night and the other one was of the Penobscot at night. Both were lifted from Historic Detroit. I would prefer if they were just removed from the site. Thanks.

^Your pics are gone as requested. Those were really cool night pics by the way.

The audience for this site is literally the people on this message thread and a couple of cousins. The domain expires early next year, and I do not intend to renew it.

You are correct though, this has transitioned from an academic, private exercise in web design into something public. I have therefore already begun the process of contacting people and looking for permitted replacement photos. If anyone has tips, links, or your own photos to share, please contact me via private message here.

If everyone would kindly indulge me with a few weeks of patience, I would like to keep the site live until I can can update the photos en masse. I will of course respond to urgent requests like the one above with the same speed. If after that time my effort to replace everything proves unfeasible, I will simply delete the whole site.

In one of your previous posts, you said the domain name would be up for renewal and that you did not intend to renew the domain. That post has since been removed. You are all over the place with regards to your intentions with this site. So, what are your intentions? Very strange thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

^Your pics are gone as requested. Those were really cool night pics by the way.

The audience for this site is literally the people on this message thread and a couple of cousins. The domain expires early next year, and I do not intend to renew it.

You are correct though, this has transitioned from an academic, private exercise in web design into something public. I have therefore already begun the process of contacting people and looking for permitted replacement photos. If anyone has tips, links, or your own photos to share, please contact me via private message here.

If everyone would kindly indulge me with a few weeks of patience, I would like to keep the site live until I can can update the photos en masse. I will of course respond to urgent requests like the one above with the same speed. If after that time my effort to replace everything proves unfeasible, I will simply delete the whole site.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

The audience for this site is literally the people on this message thread and a couple of cousins.

---

Literally the people on this thread? Do you read how many views you have had? It is not like it is 10-15 people just looking at this thread, it is a couple thousand. As the RJLJ stated above, very strange thread.

Bottom line you should have reached out to the photo's owners and requested approval for using their photos. I mean it is not that hard to figure out. If you are having trouble understanding stealing artists work and why it is wrong, then I truly worry about your ability to inform the public, no matter what size the audience is, on art deco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southen

Payment or not it is still theft if you are openly displaying work that you did not receive permission for.

One is of the Waterboard Building at night and the other one was of the Penobscot at night. Both were lifted from Historic Detroit. I would prefer if they were just removed from the site. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

appreciate and understand using the work for educational purposes, but when it goes live and you post on a forum like this it is no longer educational and you are actively stealing work.

---

It's not "commercial" unless s/he's making some money on it, how does it become "commercial" because s/he shared the link? It's an educational project done for a class and s/he's letting some others look at it and critique it. There was no [[as I understood from his/her statements) intention to disseminate it further or claim ownership of the work or any intention to make money on the work used. I'd like to understand the claim it's not fair usage, cuz that certainly seems to be square inside the exception to your copyright.

Not that I'm not sympathizing with you, but I'm not sure how, just because the class project gets some clicks you're owed something.

I never implied that I was owed something and did not ask for anything other than my work to be removed. I never looked at this as some sort of revenue stream, at least not at this moment. It is clear though that the intention is to move this from an educational exercise to something permanent based on what KarmicCurse has said.

It is not fair usage because permission was never granted. A photographer's portfolio is their intellectual property and they are the only ones that should be able to disseminate that work. Even if there is no monetary gain to his site, it is the content that will drive people there. Content that has been stolen. Furthermore as an artist I only lend my work, or sell it, to entities that I am ok having displaying it. Putting my work on this site is essentially an endorsement that I did not make and reflects back on me regardless of how it is used and if it benefits Karmic. I have no issue with the content of the site, but would the same argument be made if a local chapter of the KKK used my image as it's header even if it weren't benefiting commercially from it?

Moral of the story, ask the photographer and purchase images form a stock site. I make a living from my photography, some of which comes from selling rights to the images that were stolen, so it is an issue I am pretty adamant about. Not to sound like a dick or anything.

Okay, to end the furor I have removed all images. Sorry to have caused so much consternation.

I am definitely guilty of displaying photos without permission, yes.

But steal and theft are heavily loaded words that imply subterfuge and and falsified ownership. I said on every page and in my first post these photos are not mine. Not an excuse, no, but there is murder 1 and murder 2. I plea to the lesser charge of displaying without permission. Semantics maybe, but strong words matter.

I understand that talented photographers must have a raw nerve about seeing people take credit for their work. I didn't take credit, but I didn't give it either.

I am already about 20% of the way through with replacing all the pictures with "creative content" permitted photos from flickr. I will have to ask around about the historic ones. There will be captions with credits, and a whole new page of just photo credits with the photographer's names and links.

Thank you for bearing with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

Okay, to end the furor I have removed all images. Sorry to have caused so much consternation.

I am definitely guilty of displaying photos without permission, yes.

But steal and theft are heavily loaded words that imply subterfuge and and falsified ownership. I said on every page and in my first post these photos are not mine. Not an excuse, no, but there is murder 1 and murder 2. I plea to the lesser charge of displaying without permission. Semantics maybe, but strong words matter.

I understand that talented photographers must have a raw nerve about seeing people take credit for their work. I didn't take credit, but I didn't give it either.

I am already about 20% of the way through with replacing all the pictures with "creative content" permitted photos from flickr. I will have to ask around about the historic ones. There will be captions with credits, and a whole new page of just photo credits with the photographer's names and links.

Thank you for bearing with me.

---

You probably already know this, but the Virtual Motor City has tons of content that you might find useful for your project. You are free to include the images in your website under the rules of Fair Use, just be sure to credit back to the source if you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarmicCurse

Okay, to end the furor I have removed all images. Sorry to have caused so much consternation.

I am definitely guilty of displaying photos without permission, yes.

But steal and theft are heavily loaded words that imply subterfuge and and falsified ownership. I said on every page and in my first post these photos are not mine. Not an excuse, no, but there is murder 1 and murder 2. I plea to the lesser charge of displaying without permission. Semantics maybe, but strong words matter.

I understand that talented photographers must have a raw nerve about seeing people take credit for their work. I didn't take credit, but I didn't give it either.

I am already about 20% of the way through with replacing all the pictures with "creative content" permitted photos from flickr. I will have to ask around about the historic ones. There will be captions with credits, and a whole new page of just photo credits with the photographer's names and links.

Thank you for bearing with me.

---

Do not get discouraged,Detroit is not unlike other city's where you will have some willing to bend over backwards and can provide a wealth of information while others will have no part of it.

As long as you are doing it as a public good,if and when it becomes a commercial aspect then it becomes a whole different situation. Good luck.

Thank you so much, aoife! I did not know about that site. I already found some early construction photos. I will contact them to find out more about their usage rules. And thank you for just a kindly worded, helpful post.

And thank you too for the encouragement, Richard.

Agreed w Bailey. Southen, i get your point and i love your work, but you may want to consult an attorney to obtain some clarity on your rights and others' rights. What, pray tell, would your damages be if you were to hypothetically sue the purveyor of an educational website? Where's the pot of money, and what is your loss [[aside from credit and free publicity-- which i totally agree you should get).

I tried to stay out of this one but it keeps showing up.

Southen, you are very talented and I have admired and enjoyed your work for a long time via net. It sucks that you have been way ahead of the curve in your art but have run into recent obstacles with local TV, cable TV and now KarmicCurse. Some times the middle men are a giant pain in the ass but all this drama kinda drives home why it is a good idea to have an agent represent an artist to business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Agreed w Bailey. Southen, i get your point and i love your work, but you may want to consult an attorney to obtain some clarity on your rights and others' rights. What, pray tell, would your damages be if you were to hypothetically sue the purveyor of an educational website? Where's the pot of money, and what is your loss [[aside from credit and free publicity-- which i totally agree you should get).

---

Oh it isn't worth my time to get an attorney, that is the problem. The monetary gain, even when used by a large corporation, is basically maybe a few hundred dollars, which is why photographers dont sue and why people continue to take content that isn't theirs. I think we determined as well that the website is no longer educational, which is why I think Karmic is now trying to contact people and find new content.

Credit and free publicity was great when I was starting out, but I have since made this my business and have bills to pay. The loss I have to deal with is having control over what is my property. I just sold 14 images to be blown up at large scale to a local hospital. They paid quite well for the images and I doubt that they would like to see one of them showing up on a website randomly knowing that they paid top dollar for the rights to the shots.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but would you have the same thoughts if Lowell's paintings were popping up on a site and being used without his permission. I feel like there would be more outrage as opposed to the 'ho hum' attitude towards someone stealing photographic art. I think much of it is a perception issue.