See...I took so long scrutinizing things that the conversation has moved on without me

...and since the "fingerprint" has been found, then I change my view and vote for it being pulled too

hehe opps replied in the wrong spot

However - can I ask the experts a question on this topic too...

Does leaving "default" items in a skin make it a rip? For example, Things like the groupbox graphics, and rebar-grippers etc would seem pointless to redesign as they are so simple in nature and need to be recognised for what they are for the skin to work...

Thoughts?

Frankly I'm not convinced.....the issue is who borrowed what from whom.

Accusations of ripping should be left via email to admins, as 'wrong' accusations are 'libel' and therefore defamatory or even actionable.

There so far is no evidence that the second work has borrowed anything at all from what was exclusive, original content in the first work.

If you wish this to be public then the accusor is required to provide evidence that work unique to his own creation, not available from a third source was plagiarised.

At this stage there is no evidence of any kind that BOTH works may not have 'borrowed' their origins from a third.

This is not about a pixel comparison, but whether one or either was the first to apply exactly that style of glassy gradient.

Currently, with over 2600 WB skins there is an extremely likely chance of close similarity occurring, but until it can be demonstrated that it is not a case of both being derived from the same source then no definitive decision can be reached...

do you mean the default ones supplied by stardock? i believe that stardock allows the skin graphics like buttons to be used as any one wishes... like the weather object icons they have created ... but i could be mistaken .. im sure a stardock admin will be around to answer this one

haha he beat you HG

BTW....one altered bitmap only 'may' indicate that one image was borrowed but again there is no indication that both were not derived from a third,

At this stage there is no evidence of any kind that BOTH works may not have 'borrowed' their origins from a third.

this is true jaffo. from the images i had compared,i could see the attempted erasure of parts from the other.
it didnt occur to me that they both could be from a 3rd source ..

Glad you said that Paul (Jafo)..... I've been checking them out, and I agree with you. This is a tough call to make. They both look very familiar to me. Kinda Crumbut-ish, and Adni-ish.

#32 - yep, I was refering to the default Stardock supply with SkinStudio. I've looked for something confirming they can be used but without avail, and yet it seems pointless reinventing the wheel for such simple componants...

*thinks to self - I should take this question to the relevant board unless jafo can answer?*

Sput....the defaults are fine.....most use them...

I deleted the screenshots........ it was stretching the page out wider than my desktop. Really bugs me when that happens. 

Sput.. Those default images are not Stardocks, they're the default Luna skin. You can use them within reason.

[Message Edited]

oh and i compared quite a few of the images. i just posted 1 example but there's more than 1 that shows where the dots were and the main parts were erased but the shadowing still remains......

basically that they both probably come from the same origin...

i took for granted who made what first .. my appologies

I still think it's a rip.

/me shrugs
[Message Edited]

Let me get one thing perfectly clear: This is not an accusation, it started as a question from my part. The thing that bothers me is that ive spent a lot of time making each element and then its recolored, and someone takes all the credit.

Jafo: I have made the elements in my skin by modifying elements from many other skins. But when i say modify, I mean completely modified from scratch, not just colorized. The main reason for this is that the sizes of the bitmaps in other skins are often much better than the default sizes, and as a newbie its an easy way of getting the right sizes !! I can see for sure that ive made these parts, and i am very disappointed at being suspected by you to have stolen these elements ive worked very hard / long to make !! ( As a newbie it takes time ! )

Kona0197: Apparently its very easy to make accusations when someone else has started the thread. But at least i have an example to point at, and i suggest that everyone else who tries to degrade my work will do the same and tell me what ive ripped !!!!! >

Sorry Michael. I will leave this one to the admins as I have no idea if it is a rip or not.

I did not mean to intend THAT YOUR work is a rip. Sorry

HG_E....it took me an hour of my time...but I looked at all the images in both examples, as I am loathe to rush in and 'get it wrong'.

Michael.....the difference here is that I neither accuse , nor do I assert that either work is indeed a 'rip' of another or each other, only that so far I can determine no substantiable conclusion either way and thus would request [as always] that suggestions one way or another are kept from public scrutiny until a reasonable verdict can be established.

'Just' a hypothesis...

Without prior knowledge, who is to say both works did NOT originate from a common source but only one person removed the 'dots' from that image mentioned?

By posing any sort of 'question' in the public forum you'll simply get one or two uninformed opinions which may be erroneous and inflamatory ...not to mention counter productive...

 

Oops...left out a 'neither'....

[Message Edited]

well... I can't attest to the originality of the M3 skin but clearly the PearlBlue one uses lots of the images from the M3 one...  and to answer the question asked earlier, no it's not okay to do that without written permission from the person who's work you are including (and recoloring).

I'd say PearlBlue author needs to get permission from M3 author. PearlBlue file dates are about 10 days later than M3 file dates.

Aside from the fact that both skins have similarities to other skin styles and judging just these two skins, after downloading them (for comparison purpose) and looking at the images, I must conclude that a lot of the images used in the PearlBlue skin are indeed a copy of the images used in the M3 skin without any modification other than re-coloring. In such case and passing judgment on only these two skins, the author of the PearlBlue skin made use of the images without permission or credit to the original author; therefore it is clearly a rip issue.

Just my opinion

"My 2nd skin, inspired by "fivesballs" wonderful Desktop X goodies. Thanks to Bill for the use of his graphics, hope you like it"

Anyone bothered to check that as a source of 'inspiration'?

Come on, guys....exactly how original is a glassy-styled button, blue or not blue?

Unfortunately, dates of compilation and/or submission won't guarantee anything, one way OR another...

the files are the same.

That's not some ambiguous inspiration issue, the file was taken from here and used there after a slight shift of the saturation and hue sliders. As for who took it from who I assume the guy who says he did it first is probably telling the truth especially since his file dates are earlier than the other guy's. The fivesballs skins were not WBs so they had no buttons, scrollbars, menus etc. which is the parts that got lifted.

I'll gladly stay out of this if you prefer...

 

this has been one heck of a debate