Okay, well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I find it somewhat of a contradiction that Jafo states that it's not against copyright law to upload a screenshot of another artist's work to a public server, and yet in the same breath states that it's within the original artist's rights to stop it from happening. If those rights aren't a part of copyright law, then what are they?

Anyway, as I stated time and time again, it's the uploading of a screenshot of a modified skin that can and would be considered in breach of copyright law, regardless of whether credit is given or not.

A screenshot of an unmodified skin in use only serves to promote the use of that skin by others, as you're saying 'look at this great skin I'm using'. A screenshot of a modified skin damages the integrity of the original work, and equates to saying 'look at this skin I hacked up into a new one of my own creation'. That was the distinction I was continually making.

With regard to where the servers are physically situated, I think you'll find it has little or no bearing on copyright. The copyright still lies with the original artist under local law in the place it was created, and is enforcable as such.

Take a hypothetical situation where you take a painting you bought by a local artist with you to another country, cut the border off to remove the artist's signature, and then try to pass it off as your own work in that country. Just because you're in another country under a different set of laws, does not immediately remove any claim to copyright that original artist has. It is clearly stated in both UK and US copyright law that the method of storage or transmission of a work of art is irrelevant, as the same laws apply to digital creations as they do to physical ones. So these two situations are comparable.

We can sit here and argue the details until we're blue in the face, but the fact remains that if such a case ever did get to a court of law, the ruling would be weighted heavily in favour of the original artist. I'm not saying they would always win, but in general the law would be on their side.

lol... yeesh... i'll make my two points again and quit.

1) promoting other people to do what is within their rights to do is perfectly fine. If others get excited enough about that screenshot that it makes them go rip apart your skin and make that composite skin for their own personal use, it is within their rights to do it. They can't give it away to others, though, just like the first guy couldn't.

2) Sure, you still own the copyright to the work if it is on a server in another country, or on the moon, but you have no real ability to enforce it. Pretend I have a server with a screenshot you don't like here in the US, how would you force me take it down? I squinted through the UK copyright site and couln't find much difference between the 'fair-use' clauses of the US and UK, anyway.

Be glad you are wrong. IF you were right, China and fundamentalist Islamic countries could be sueing us and putting us in jail for breaking their own asinine laws. At worst now they could just issue a warrant for our arrest and wait til we visited to nab us. (Like the current thing with Australia and the US entertainment industry.)

Can we, like, stop this now? It's getting a little beyond sad...

No, baker..it's not 'sad', it's just a minor hiccup in communication...

The displaying of another's skin....which is for people to 'look at', it does not enable them to 'use' it, is exactly the same as having it on your own computer screen and saying to your family...'hey, look at this'.
It is entirely legal, no matter where you are or are not situated.
Neither 'situation' allows you to legally pass on that skin to a third person, be it the visitor to a site, or your sister at home.
That is considered 're-distribution' which, in copyright law [in private use] you are NOT entitled by the artist.
The artist gives you inherrent rights to use his skin for private enjoyment, not a 'broadcast' license as he has granted sites such as this, where the skin itself is available for distribution/download.
Yes, so, too, is the screenshot 'at issue', it, too, is available for distribution, but that is NOT the artist's skin, it is a picture of it only.

grayhaze, when I say it's the artist's right to request/have an 'offending' screenshot removed I'm not being 'contradictory', I'm expressing a personal opinion of what I personally would consider a fair action for me to be happy with to keep the peace with the concerns of an artist whether 'justified/valid' or not.

A 'screen' is JUST a screen, and matters not in the realm of an artists'/skinners' site where the all-important concern is the actual WORKS themselves.

BUT...

All that not withstanding, screenshots are important to, and always have been important to customizing sites as clear indications of our 'profession's' capabilities, so I would see it as totally counter-productive to hinder/limit their display....[as I said, unless there is a clear degradation/defamation of an original artist's work via the display of an horrendously modified version].

There is no law preventing the private modification of an artist's work [nor should there be], only against the public redistribution of that work, which, a static jpg image is not.

If anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons at greater length, rather than the slow limitations of an MB...
My ICQ...59227163...it's a valid, important 'concern' that's worthy of clarification/discussion...

Jafo: My question has to do with the Windowblind (Destination) by swtnssss. She included a wallpaper because she couldn't remember what site she got it from. If thats the case does she need to include a permission from the author or not? I'am kind of baffeled!

Jafo - That does seem a bit more clear than what I read earlier. I shall sleep at ease tonight!


WiseOldMan - Off topc, , but it seems you are correct. The uploaded .wba file does include a .jpg and it would seem by the description that it was not created by that author. There is also not a permission.txt included. Would seem to be a clear in this case that they would have to repost the skin w/o the wall...

I kind of thought so Bill but it was moderated and I thought that they would have caught it. Thats why I didn't bring this up before. The more I read this thread I figured I'd better ask.

If there is any skin at all on the site with an included work by another artist...and without permission for that inclusion then the skin will be removed, pending permission verification being added [if given].

/me goes off to check 'Destination'...

I'm not going to continue my side of the debate any further, but I'm still yet to be convinced. It seems that my opinion that skins come under the exact same law and traditional art is incorrect if what Jafo says is true. I would consider an unobscured screenshot of a modified version of one of my skins to be just as much in breach of copyright as an unobscured screenshot of a modified version of a wallpaper being displayed on a desktop. Both can be reverse engineered into a useable file from those screenshots, and as such both should be treated equally.

Anyway, it's clear that I'm just talking to myself here, and it's entirely possible that I am wrong. Perhaps bakerstreet's right when he says the discussion has become 'sad'.

I will continue to enforce any breach of my copyrights though, whether that be ripped skins or screenshots of ripped skins. I don't see the need to make a distinction.

Grayhaze...the distinction is that a screenshot of a skin must needs be deconstructed, reverse-engineered by someone to again become an actual functional 'skin', whereas an unobstructed wallpaper screenshot can be right-clicked and saved as desktop image, requiring absolutely no effort on the part of the downloader.
It is a clear and [I thought] obvious difference.

A screenshot of a wall is a wall.
A screenshot of a skin is not a skin....it is just what a skin 'looks like' if you happen to have it and be using it.

A screenshot of your skin is not a 'rip' of your skin...it is just someone showing the world that they downloaded your skin, and like it enough to want to show people.
If he were to alter your skin, even by something as 'inadvertent' as having a lower colour setting, making your skin look 'poorly', then perhaps there would be a 'need' to want to remove what could be seen as 'poor advertising'...If he modifies the skin and shows a screenshot of the mod, and you, the original artist disapproves of the mod, request its removal and it will be gone, but it is not a breach of copyright [rip] until it is uploaded as a skin itself.
A screenshot of a modified graphical representation of a skin is at worst a caricature of the original, nothing more heinous than that...

As I said, agree to disagree.

Jafo: is this OK? Logon, The Matrix has you, It states in the description that he does not have permission.