LightStar I think what you have wrote is what I believe but for the sake of stirring the pot even further I just resigned myself to shut up. I know for a fact that some have used others work without obscuring the background and it has been allowed. I know because I was one of those persons. I had submitted several in the past and never obscured the image. I gave credit to those I could but some wallpapers I knew nothing about. I removed those shots because I wanted to clean up my submissions. Now I am wishing I had not done that so people could see what I am talking about.

In the past I have created a few wallpapers of my own. I would be honored also if someone wanted to take those walls and use them in a shot providing they did not try to pass it off as their own work.

I am all for policies and will abide by them whether I agree or not. Besides I have no choice unless I just want to give up a hobby I enjoy.

I'm the opposite side of the coin. I'm a great believer in protecting all copyright. To have control over how your work is either presented or distributed is vital.

You may think it is over the top, but I would have removed the link in the OP - I can click that link, download the screenshot and extract the wallpaper in a couple of minutes. I really don't see here any protection for that artist's copyright.

Yes I do think that is over the top but that is just my opinion just like you have yours.

So where do we draw the line then. If you look at my shot you will notice that I also used a start button that I downloaded from deviantart. If I had obscured the main image and not obscure the button should it also have not been permitted. It is after all the Harley Logo but no one had said anything about that. Maybe no one noticed. 

I am not arguing Copyright. I believe in it. What I am arguing is what seems to be a double standard in some cases which really makes things confusing.

JuniorCrooks -

That's it in a nutshell.

The moderators will determine if any screenshot is within those rules. There is no 'double standard'.

It is possible that some screenshot may have gotten through that could be questionable but in the judgement of the moderator it was acceptable.  I would suggest following the 'official' advice from Jafo in comment # 19 of which I quoted a section from it.

I am not suggesting the moderators have double standards. I know that they do the best they can with the policies adopted and implemented by Wincustomize. I think there is a problem with interpretation.

Why is it that I can submit shots like this on other reputable sites with no issue at all? Are those sites breaking copyright laws or do they just interpret those laws differently. I do not think Customize.org, Deviantart and countless others has ever been sued for a screenshot by me or anyone.

I can also on this very site see skins of WB and other software that uses logos, and other images of major companies yet they are available for download. If you think there is no double standard you are sadly mistaken.

Those are the rules here on WinCustomize.com. The moderators will moderate on the rules that are in place here.  Whatever is acceptable on other skinning sites is up to them.

If you wish to submit to WinCustomize.com then you will need to follow the rules that are for this site.

This is because those sites have different policies, Deviantart, unless something has changed since I last uploaded something there has no moderation at all. Even if you report a ripped skin there very rarely will it be removed, whereas here if you report a ripped skin it will normally disappear almost faster than you can blink.

I did not just upload on deviantart but you are right, the other sites must have different policies. 

I know it probably appears that I am just looking for an argument here because I have posted often. My initial intent was for knowledge. I now know how many of you feel so in that respect I have gained knowledge. 

Thanks for all your feedback.    

"If you wish to submit to WinCustomize.com then you will need to follow the rules that are for this site."

"I am all for policies and will abide by them whether I agree or not" I had already said this in a previous post. So no need to use the big black font.

I think we can put this to sleep now but that is not up to me. I have not had all my questions answered but I don't think they will ever be. That's OK though.

Fuzzy....that link is to the artist's upload....and he controls its access and distribution.

If he doesn't want it linked to he can delete it at its source.

That is entirely different to someone re-uploading his image elsewhere...be it in an unobscured screenshot...or as a wall download.

Hot-linking to a legitimate upload isn't an issue.

Allowing distribution to IP without the owner's consent is.

It's really quite simple.

To anyone claiming to have a fully exposed wall not of their creation....let me know...and I will remove it [or them] to maintain appropriate IP/copyright.