(in reference to Moshi posted links to dashboard themes) I thought I would point out that the icons in all those screen shots are not made by the theme authors. They are the actual icons that are provided by the program developers and appear on the desktop as such. The themes that use famous characters can be considered fan art. However the authors would have to prove they created the works and have not copied and pasted them.

And in 1961, baker, there were no 'screenshots', yet they entail the extraction and redistribution of an icon....by...
* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.

Yet, strangely this is deemed OK...but were that exact same icon stuck on an iddy-biddy little 'wall', say, 100 x 50 pixels then it's NOT OK.
Interesting double standard, don't you think?...

Static....as much as we manage to find them, we don't approve 'fan-art' unless its creation is either 100% their own or has permission, as with walls...

P.S.

"It's really easy to sit and point out 'copyright issues' and make wonderful judgements and determinations about all and sundry..."

That statement is eating at me. actually, it *is* easy. Like we always say, if you didn't make it or have permission to use it, don't upload it. It works for us, but not for commercial apps? If software developers released icons as 'free use' shortcuts, they would offer them as such publically, wouldn't they?

I have great doubts that some icon 'creators' here even own all the software they make derivative icons for. That would grant them *no* right at all to own or use the icons, much less make a derivative work from them.

As it stands 99% of icons are embedded in apps... not what I would call an indication that the developer wants their natural state to be 'fair use' and accessable to all, regardless of software ownership.

Jafo: a screenshot is not an icon, it is an image of icons amidst the rest of a desktop. Cars passing by a newscast are not cars, they are images of cars... incedental inclusion. The point of a screenshot is not to pass around icons. If your theory were correct, then people selling cars, comic books, computers, etc., could not display images of them, since the hood ornaments, logos, etc., are trademarked.

I'm sorry but this screenshot thing seems a lot more like an excuse than a precedent. Screenshots are images of a desktop, icons are 'works', pure and simple.

§tatic: none of the links was about icons they were about cut and paste nonsense and the use of trademarked logos. just ask the FIFA (international real football federation) how much they charge for merchandise licences ... several dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars. doubt they approve the use of their logo in a Deshboard skin.
Stardock does great effort to commercialise skinning (and i do not like them for that), so they just have to play real world rules.

btw: i just had my "free lunch" of the day. unlike most of you believe such things exist. full MP3 album from a band´s website.

moshi I mentioned the icons for the following reason. Wanted to point out that that would not be the copy right material you were talking about. Back to your witch hunt moshi

#15 by Jafo - 4/29/2003 2:35:59 PM
OK...had a quick look at #7.....and see plenty I have a 'problem' with...perhaps a couple that I am at a loss to see where the issue is...if it's a MS Word icon that's used or similar read my previous post.
Primarily there are background images [photoskins] that perhaps shouldn't be there.

Something will be 'done'....

baker..an icon is and/or can be a simple collection of pixels....perhaps 16x16 of them...arranged in a 'copyrighted' way...and lookie here, so is its reproduction in a screenshot.

The 'image' is identical...100 and 1 %.
The example of the photo of the car is entirely off target...so far so that it is quite humorous....
A phot of a car is ONLY that. You gotta be weird to expect to be able to actually drive it, and puting petrol in it will knacker it totally...
The 'photograph' is NOT the 'car'...the example is flawed.

The issue of the 'icon' is a group of pixels being redistributed in original or modified form, and a screenshot is exactly that, ergo all screenshots should be illegal...

moshi...about #32..again, I didn't see the FIFA stuff submitted, but had I they'd be rejected automatically...and will be now.

As for #33 I have no idea what yer on about...

§tatic: did you draw that Spiderman?
did you use GPLed icons from the HiColor set by Tackat in several of your skins and then not put your derivative work under GPL as well as it is a condition when using those?
and don´t we all know that Apple does not allow the use of their logo?

all illegal, but i was honest when i said i don´t care about that

it´s just that some statements and reality contradict each other. sig looked pretty exhausted when he read "blatant copyright theft", so i gave him a few examples.

i would enjoy a discussion about interface design better

on #33: was just to avoid statements like "there is no free lunch" because i said i don´t like commercialisation.

cool band btw., but i doubt you´re into Jungle and Ragga. http://www.visionaryunderground.com/html/audio.html

the FIFA one is here: https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371

Emulating OS's is an acceptable practice with the exception of using Mac's logos. Spidy is fan art however I would not argue it as still being under copy right and would not protest its removal. Was one of my early skins and quite horrid... should have been moderated in the beginning...

You don't upload screenshots to distribute the contents of them for other people to use. If so, then by all means they need to go too. IF you say "well, if that is illegal, then that must be too..." it doesn't prove your point, it just drags something else into it. Do you want them dragged in?


I can display a photo of my office for purposes of "illustration or clarification" and the trademarked logos and such therein are incidental. If I take the same trademarked logos and make wallpapers out of them, I am acting illegally. A screenshot is not a derivative work, it is a documentation. A re-colored icon is a derivative work. I don't understand the confusion.

The purpose of a screenshot is to document the desktop.

The PURPOSE of a pack of copyrighted icons is to distribute copyrighted icons to people who may or may not own the software.

You can't take a screenshot and plug it right into ObjectDock can you? No, you have to make a derivative *work* out of it to do so. No one considers screenshots to be 'works'.

Unfortunately, the sole purpose of re-distributed icons is to distribute other people's works. If they don't have permission, it is wrong.

**

No point in argument, this would be really easy to decide. Let's pick, say, the top 100 most-used software icons and contact the software developers with links to sets here that contain them. Then they can exercise the their own rights as they and their lawyers comprehend them.

Oh, but if next week the 101st developer disagrees, then I guess we'll be right back here again. I didn't think it was kosher to 'assume' the creator of a work doesn't mind. As long as folks like Apple can decide their stuff does not belong here, then WC really can't speak for the developers.

Tackat did these icons for the KDE project (which is not an OS, but a desktop environment) and released them under Open Source. so you are expressively allowed to do derivative work under the condition that this derivative work is released under Open Source as well and a copy of the GPL is included in the distributed file.

i really wonder what gives anybody the right to ignore his terms and conditions? just because he is not Treetog does not mean this is right, especially when he does allow his icons to be used.

You are correct about the GPL to be included I will update my linux themes that use the KDE likeness with the GPL... will you stop using your version of windows now that you have violated your EULA? By hacking the dll's to modify your computers appearance.

moshi...re #42....it is quite difficult for site admins to distinguish between what is or isn't available under GPL...we are dependent on the uploader who sourced the object/s.
If/when made aware of the situation it can be dealt with.
It has SFA to do with ignoring anything or anyone unless it's treetog....blah blah....that is insulting, and you know it.

Baker...re #41..I know what you mean about the 'difference' but in truth the icon's image is being publicly distributed both ways...only 'perhaps' motive is different...

cool
i´m still not sure about that EULA thing. can you point me to the exact paragraph? i still have the unmodified originals backed up, so it could be a tricky question.

And re #39...it's been exiled, as has a half dozen others...so far.

It's the sort of response you are more likely to get here than several other places I could mention...

Jafo: you´re right. abusing Treetog in that statement was stupid.

5. LIMITATION ON REVERSE ENGINEERING,
DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse
engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Product, except and
only to the extent that it is expressly permitted by
applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

this is from the win2k eula however you will find similar statements in all MS products. They do not permit you to change anything in their code. Unless the law explicitly states your allowed too.

note that this paragraph was only 5 rules in... not alot of reading to get there moshi

No, moshi....the insult was towards the admins and wizops of this site in general, implying a different set of rules apply for 'some' and not for 'others'.

THAT is the insult.

You know damn well that myslf and the other admins here go out of our way to 'try' to protect the rights of any artist, known or unknown.

No, maybe you don't know that.
You see a handfull of 'problem works' and scream the sky is falling.

Think back a year or so to Devart's chick-wall section...ask bakerstreet just how horrendous it was...until it was cleaned up of photo theft.

This site has a pretty good track record...eg fewer and fewer Mac logos around, etc.....bet you can't say the same for the other sites...

OK, so some slip through...maybe due to 'auto upload', probably just accident/uncertainty....but perhaps you'd boggle at the number culled before they get in...

MODERATOR HAT ON:

ENOUGH GUYS. If you want to get into another mental masterbation excercise on copyright do it in another god damn post? Understand?

What an assanine argument. What's next? Should magazines say that Windows XP is crap because most wallpapers available for it suck? Object Desktop is a suite of desktop enhancements that includes virtual desktops, integrated ZIP, WindowBlinds, DesktopX, ObjectBar, Tab LaucnhPad, Object Edit, IconPackager, etc.

The review should cover the functionality of the software. Software that is in use by millions of people. If they want to argue that third party skins and themes and wallpapers and such violate copyright or whatever then they should do a seperate article on it.

But enough with the damn thread hijacking. If someone has a problem with the copyright protection of this site, then sue us. Email [email protected]. The copyright protection of this site meets our standards. If you disagree, then get a lawyer or start your own thread where you and piss and moan about it to others who want to similarly piss or moan.

Do I make myself crystal clear?