Bad copies, forgeries, and photograph reproductions.

motion...the only time a 'copy' of a 'master' is acceptable is when the 'master' in fact copied an OS...that is, a 'port'.
EG....skinner 'A' makes a skin VERY similar to the 'standard' OS skin...and skinner 'B' does, like-wise.
Yes, skinner'B' 'appears' to have copied skinner 'A' but has, in fact, arrived at the same result separately.

To be 'original' enough to lay claim to a work it really 'should' be somewhat different from any others before it.
People should just stop with endless permutations of the standard XP look or Mac/aqua look and do something in their own, genuinely individual style.

The problem with 'just another XP look-alike' is that you end up having to analyse individual pixels just to be sure they are not the same skin just recoloured or something.
Some skinners might even 'get off' on cloning their own...countless uploads of 'XP-blue', 'XP-not quite as blue', 'XP much less blue', ad nauseum, but really it's the same-old, same-old, and it gets annoying.

More care and attention to 'originality' and less proliferation and the world would be a 'sexier' place...

I agree jafo, the world would be a 'sexier' place. I would love for it to be so.

When I reproduced the photograph for my client that I mentioned in my original post, I felt dirty, like I had just done something terribly wrong. But the client says no, it isn't wrong.

That's where I get confused. Hypothetically, if I sit with an original Van Gogh and painstakingly reproduce it on canvas, stroke by stroke until only an expert could tell the difference between the two, then I have committed an act of forgery. But if I do the same with a WindowBlinds skin, I haven't done anything wrong, provided the original WindowBlinds skin was done in a particular 'style' such as in the 'style' of the OS.

It's not that I don't believe what you are saying, but that it is just a hard to reconcile the two examples. The line between them seems very thin.

If you copy someone's art I don't think it is forgery unless you claim that it was done by the original artist. If you post your copy on the web, it may be a copyright violation. Certainly if you use your copy in a commercial setting or to make money it is a copyright violation.

As far as skins go, it seems like a much less black and white situation because of the limitations of skinning. It doesn't seem fair that if someone uses a gradient to make a flat surface look curved, then no-one else can do the same thing for all of eternity, which is how some artists would like to have it.

What if skinners know up-front that it's OK for other people to make variations of their skins? What do they have to lose? So what if someone else does the same skin with a different color variation or different buttons, etc. Who is getting hurt? The original artist wold still have the copyright to his own work.

I would like to see a "Mods" section of Wincustomize where people could post their modifications of other peoples skins. Everything can be improved, so why not let people improve other people's skins? It would be like a huge collaboration project. Like open-source code (Linux).

"What if skinners know up-front that it's OK for other people to make variations of their skins? What do they have to lose? So what if someone else does the same skin with a different color variation or different buttons, etc. Who is getting hurt? The original artist wold still have the copyright to his own work."

If it's a blatant reproduction of an original skin with just small differences like colors and/or buttons, IMO at least acknowledgement should be made to the original skinner, even if permission to use the prototype is not deemed strictly necessary.

For example, we've recently seen a multitude of skins copying Adni18 to the extent that when I first saw them even I, a newbie to this all, thought they were rips. Apparently it isn't considered a rip if the exact same bitmaps aren't used or some such thing. (As we know this author's first skins were actual rips but the ones currently on WC are not deemed so.) Still, they're blatant reproductions of an Adni style, format, whatever one wishes to call it. It's one thing when it's an OS that's being copied. We can all tell that a red or orange Luna skin, for example, is a variation of the XP theme that's part of the XP OS. But when an individual's work is copied as in this instance, this repro artist is praised for his skins as if it is all his creation and ingenuity when essentially he's a copier and a colorist. (I think Adni may have even been accused of copying this fellow's work, which is truly an insult IMO.) If it's any comfort, I suppose, the one trick pony act is wearing thin as the fellow's just been recoloring the same old template and people are noticing that.

Still...an attribution to the original mind behind the prototype at the very least is warranted in my opinion. I'm not talking about all skins, just those where the skinner clearly and knowingly reproduces a variation based on someone else's original skin. Especially when one can still ascertain the prototype and original author, although technically it may not be a "rip." I've seen people mention that they were "inspired" by another's work, even when there is no question of copying or ripping. Acknowledging the original author's work is a classy thing to do, even if copyright is not an issue.

So my question is, what do those who engage in such reproductions of original work have to lose by giving credit to the original skinner?

you can't copy an idea, or a subject, in terms of art. If there was a really fine line held to, anyone who took pictures at Yellowstone would be ripping off Ansel Adams, or Mapplethorpe would be the only one that could take a self-portait with a whip up his butt...

I had a wood and stainless steel skin (221b-era stuff: http://saix.freethemes.com/skins/icq/preview/23578.html ) ages ago, and this site has a stainless and wood theme. Quite similar, but in no way a rip, IMHO, (oak maybe? I was going more for a cherry). I don't have any control of the 'idea' of wood and stainless, and the materials implied are universal.

In the original scenario it is iffy, since the law leans heavily on the idea of 'confusion'. If you create something similar with the specific purpose of causing confusion between your work and someone else's, either to steal their customers or use their marketing to your advantage, then you are stealing.

The description above is damning, since they wanted to get look-alike models, etc., but it would be very, very unlikely someone looking at the work would say "Hey, that is a Comstock (or whoever it was) image!" and therefore be more apt to do business because of the association.

My conclusion would be that the above is technically stealing, but only in such a esoteric way that it would be impossible to prove... unless of course the offending party described the whole scenario publically...

OK...some base rules of conduct.

There's no harm in 'copying' or using another's graphics or parts there-of....PROVIDED they are NOT uploaded under ANY pretext without the original skinner/artist's specific consent.

ALL other alternative actions are what is known as 'ripping', or 'theft'.

The example with the photograph 'copying' the original is just such an instance. It would have been much more appropriate to have gotten consent from the original photographer and simply used his.
Adds insult to injury were there to be monetary gains involved.


A clear distinct and appropriate example....
I recently 'ported' or created a Shell theme from a wall by 'Misery'/'Deaddreamer', sought his permission to upload it and received same.
It used cut-out 'bits' of his wall as separate images, etc...yes, I did quite a bit to 'modify' them but much was really cut and paste and clone, etc.
So far, so good.
Since then, I've done a WinAMP skin as well...and a Sysmetrix one....[and others]...but as yet have not received specific permission to upload these...so....they're rusting quietly on my HD.

This isn't 'good manners' or 'protocol'...it's da rulez...

Thank you sig101 that you have notice all this situation of massive reproduction of my skins, by mainly one skinner, who has just changed his nickname and he is again among us! I guess that one who has been exiled, if he change his nickname is again welcome, like nothing has happen!
Any way, he is trying hard, but he doesn't change his methods.

very interesting thread.
It's about skins/styles legacity or about skins/styles honor?

I find some 'very exagerated' rips in other sites (pixel by pixel), exagerated style copies (specially by Adni and Windows/Aqua styles), and enhancing/complementing others creations/styles (AKA JamesT icons, icons/skins with glass effects, etc.).

Motion, it's YOUR CLIENT wich wish a copy, not you. And US (the creators) when are creating some new design.. are really CREATING A NEW DESIGN?

My experiencies are: before i create my first wallpaper i downloaded ALL aqua-based skins. Now i have a Mac with OSX installed, and i work 8 hours daily with a Mac OSX powered. I'm really bored with Aqua interface (bored, but not unsatisfied). When i beginned skinning i copied other skinners style (specially mormegil's jobs and Mac designs). With more (but not a lot) experience i tried to make more original designs, and these are the most gratifying for me (and for other users, viewing the comments).

So i deduce: if you don't make a Mac-like skin or a very original-nice-blue-gelified skin/wallpaper/icon, you never make a 'god' skin.

But you can always make your designs only for your PERSONAL SATISFACTION...

adni18, caution! Maybe this guy will copy your nick too! adni19, adni14?

Actually, bakerstreet, it was a Comstock and the image in question has a higher possiblility of being spotted than most. It is one of the images featured on the Comstock homepage. I think most photographers and graphic artists in this area that have access to the internet would probably recognize it.

I warned the client against it. The client is determined that there will be no problem. They feel the photograph is commonplace enough that a coincidence can be claimed if any problems arise.

I have my doubts. And being the one who mass produced the 50,000 copies of the brochure, this could come back on me too.

The one saving grace is that the brochures are for a non-profit organization and I did not charge for the service. ( a charitable donation if you will). Since no one is making money I'm conviced most people would look the other way.

However, it is not a situation I like finding myself in. We offered the client the option of creating a new and original photograph that would capture the same mood as the Comstock photograph without copying it outright. The client was steadfast on the idea of using the Comstock photograph. Some people are extremely pig-headed.

As far as what is happening to Adni18....well, I could very easily recreate one of his skins from scratch. All the bitmaps would be created from the beginning by me. But it would look exactly like Adni18's. (Don't worry Nikos, I would never do that. ) Since the bitmaps would all be made by me and not just cut and pasted from the original Adni18 skin, would I then be allowed to upload it? If so, that just doesn't seem right. There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea. Apart from not being at all original, it's just wrong. To me, it's stealing.

motion...a 'similar' artwork needs to be sufficiently different that 'coincidence' could be the reason for its likeness.
The issue, just with the photo example is that if there is a proven prior knowledge of a work, any subsequent 'similar' work can be accused of plagiarizing...

Again, as for your photo work, financial gain or not makes little difference, and your best defence is to have in writing record of your stated concern and displeasure with your client's course of action.
As a responsible professional, it's our duty to only offer 'legitimate' advice....I can say - 'yeah, build the garage without a permit...no-one will probably even notice', but professional practice requires me to inform the client 'all works require Council consent prior to construction'....see what I mean?...

It has been done all ready Carlitus, someone has used the name "adni_18", but thanks to T-Man he never get through.

Thank you Tim

Of course I couldn't help but notice, Adni18, since it's obvious that it's your skins (or style) he's copying, whether he's actually using your pixels or not.

I understand that a rip involves actually using components of an original skin. Making some changes but still using the actual original skin and some of its components as the base. OK to do for your own use, but not to publically publish without permission of the original author. That to me is clear.

But presumably, again for an example, this fellow formerly known as Arcila is not using components of Adni's skins since his skins are still allowed here. But his "reproductions" leave no question as to their orignal source or inspiration IMO. As was explained here previously, to closely mimic another author's distinctive style or skins is not engough to constitute a rip. And in the same explanation, variations on OS styles were also mentioned as similar examples of "reproductions" which are not rips. That's ok IMO because as I said, I'm not likely to mistake a purple Luna skin for an XP original or a uniquely inspired original.

That's why I previously used the term "reproduction" or "copy" since pesumably one can reproduce or mimic a skin or skin style without using actual bits of the original skin. My point is that when the reproduced variation is clearly and intentionally based on an original skin or another author's distinctive style (without using the original author's pixels), I do think some attribution should be given to the originator of that specific skin style, even if technically it is not a rip and permission is not required.

Motion: why was saying "no" to the client not a viable option? Maybe you didn't have the final say but if your company had concerns regarding the legality or how this might reflect on the the company, the proper answer would have been "no" with the option of doing something else as you offered.

If the client didn't like it, well the client wasn't paying. And any future potential blowback from staging a repro of a well known pic wouldn't reflect as much on the client but rather your company since it knew what it was doing wasn't entirely kosher. And since it was a freebie "that's what the customer wanted" holds less sway over what the company chooses to do, seems to me.

Of course, no was an option. This client does not react well to being given a 'no' answer. This client does not always get their work done for free, this was just a job where they were promised a 'freebee' as a contribution to their cause. We still depend on them for a great deal of business. It's always a tightrope.

Ah, yes, of course then that's understandable and certainly an unpleasant situation to find oneself in. Which is of course why they insisted.

Dang this gets deep!

I got to wondering about this as a musician. Pete Fountain does a wonderful version of Just a Closer Walk with Thee. Great recording. I've learned to play both the original and his version (sort of).

Here's my question - Is Fountain's version a rip? Certainly he took the original and modified it; that's what jazz is. Is my modification/copy of his version a rip? Of whom?

I ain't good enough to make any money from music, however I do see some similarities between visual arts (skinning) and audio art (music and specifically jazz).

Just another log on the fire.

motion - I remember a case very similar to yours where an agency made a copy of a famous photographer's shot to use in an ad. I can't remember all the details (was about 20 years ago) but I do remember the outcome. The agency was sued by the photographer, lost the case, was forced to pay some huge settlement and pull the ad. I had a client ask me to 'knock-off' an ad once and he was insisting that no one would care. I refused and made something that was different enough it wouldn't be immediately identified with the original though it did look 'derived' from it. That's unfortunately very common in commercial art.

But a direct copy of a copyrighted photo which mimicks the layout, lighting and composition enough that it can be identified as a copy will definitely get you in trouble if it's noticed. Your original feelings were right, it's not only unethical it's also illegal.

Chef Gary....Just a Closer Walk with Thee is probably public domain, so no ripping occurred. Had Pete recorded something by Duke Wellington, without permission, that would be ripping.
As far your version goes, that's the same as me modifing a skin for personal use.

hey - it's the artist formerly known as koasati~~~

When a musician makes a cover of a song by someone else, they can do whatever they want with it but they still have to pay royalties to whoever owns the song before they can release it.

chef - also, pete fountain didn't claim he'd written it. that's the biggie if you look on cds where some band is covering somebody else's tunes, it will always say who it was written by.

same as performing music live, as a cover band in a bar. you don't pay royalties to anybody, but you also don't claim you wrote it yourself. metallica got their start playing covers of old queen and diamond head tunes in big-time bars like the whiskey in la remember though, bands who stay 'cover bands' never make it anywhere.

just as a basic artistic tenet, copying = lame.

motion:: duck and cover man..

When you take a fundamentalistic stance on what is copyright, after a while you will have a lot of people conducting cases against each other. You end up in a society written by Orwell. When it comes to art (and who defines art?) lots of things have been done over and over again. Lots of things have been painted, or photographed in a same kind of style. If you admire someone you will try to reach the same effects. If that is copying or stealing I am not sure if I want to live in such a society. It's blatant oppression. Not being able to express yourself is in contrast to the freedom of people. If I would make a collage of photographs I have collected from glossy magazines or newspapers, would I have to ask each photographer the permission to make the collage? Any extremistic answer on this question is to me an act of terrorism. I am not harming anyone, I am making an advertisement instead: Look at what this artist has made there and there. Look at his work! And I am so intrigued I wanted to do something the same. Now, if one is intended to publish someones work and make money out of it, that would be wrong. I still think copyright is about the protection for such activities. If you take a photograph in the same manner as a well known photographer, you have to add: inspired by photographer mr X. And if it is used for non-profit purposes there is even no gain. If mr X is going to sue here and sways with the copyright law, to me that one would be an ill person seeking some easy personal gain. My opinion. Will probably get a whole bunch of extremists over me now

Lecrayon:

"...would I have to ask each photographer the permission to make the collage?"

yes, or you are breaking the law.

The law does not care if you make money off what you steal, it just says not to steal. If I steal a painting just to look at it, is it stealing? If I take the only commodity an artist has, and then give it away en masse, am I being fair to the artist? The magazine you scanned it from paid for the right to display that image, did you?

Call it terrorism if you like, but cutting and pasting other people's work does nothing to foster creativity, it just borrows other people's creativity. Barring that act doesn't touch any freedom you have. You still have the freedom to make your collage, but you don't have the right to distribute it.

If you do distribute frankenstein collages of other people's work, then you take away the right of the original artists to say who may create derivative works. Taking someone's rights away is far more akin to terrorism. The rights you are trying to protect don't exist, and have never existed, there's nothing to sway.

Motion, I know that DavidK pointed out a high profile case, but I don't think what you did is going to get you in trouble. I'm taking a business law class right now, and we just covered, copyright, trademark, trade dress and all that. I have also had many photography classes and covered the whole copyright issues of photography. What you did can probably be considered unethical, but if it is illegal would questionable. Copyright regulations on photography has changed. you can not copyright photographic intellectual property. You would have to set up the picture with the exact same models, lighting, surroundings, etc. for them to really claim it as a copyright infringement. Your picture is original (even though it was inspired by a similar photo) because it uses different people and was shot by you. I, personally, wouldn't do it, but I am pretty sure that if legal actions were taken against you, a fairly decent attorney could get the case dismissed.