Ripping question...
Thursday, August 15, 2002 by Nomad529 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
~ I'm fairly new to actually creating skins. I used to modify ones I downloaded to better suit my needs. Only recently have I started actually skinning. Trying at least... Anyway, my question is:
Is a screenshot of something you're working on, which uses elements from other artists, considered a rip?
~ I'm waiting on permission from certain authors before I post what I've been working on, but I'd love to post a screenshot to get some feedback on it. Is this allowed or would I be cursed to fiery pits of Hell for doing so?
Is a screenshot of something you're working on, which uses elements from other artists, considered a rip?
~ I'm waiting on permission from certain authors before I post what I've been working on, but I'd love to post a screenshot to get some feedback on it. Is this allowed or would I be cursed to fiery pits of Hell for doing so?
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
bakerstreet
Reply #22 Saturday, August 17, 2002 1:45 AM
Reply #22 Saturday, August 17, 2002 1:45 AM
Don't be. Simply state in your screenshot what people are looking at, and flatly refuse to distribute it until you have the permission of everyone whose stuff you used to make it. When you do, credit them to the fullest extent possible, both in the comments and the file itself. Easy enough, right? If you happen to get a omplaint from someone about a screenshot ( i doubt you ever would), use your best judgement, or ask advice.
no one is gonna lynch ya, seriously, what is being debated here are fine points. IF you were a ripper you'd not be asking this to begin with. Common sense is fine.
no one is gonna lynch ya, seriously, what is being debated here are fine points. IF you were a ripper you'd not be asking this to begin with. Common sense is fine.
grayhaze
Reply #23 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:05 AM
Reply #23 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:05 AM
I posted another long reply to your comments bakerstreet, but typically it got lost in transmission.
So here it is in shorthand.
1) Screenshots of original skins ARE in breach of copyright, but are still generally acceptable so long as credit given.
2) Screenshots of modified skins ARE in breach of copyright, and should only be posted if given permission by the original artist.
3) Derivative works include any image which contains the exact graphical information from an image created by another artist. This therefore includes screenshots.
4) Using your 'photo of a car' analogy: A screenshot of a skin is comparable to the blueprints of the main components of a car. A photo of a computer screen displaying a skin is comparable to a photo of a car.
I just want to make sure that you're aware of the facts, rather than simple opinion. Copyright law isn't something to be interpreted as you would a vague statement. It doesn't vary depending on good intent, but is a fixed law which very specifically states what is and is not acceptable.
It's good that Raistlin has asked others before acting, as this shows that the intent to rip is not there. However, it's our duty to him as one of the few with the good sense and manners to ask the question, to provide him with the facts.
So here it is in shorthand.
1) Screenshots of original skins ARE in breach of copyright, but are still generally acceptable so long as credit given.
2) Screenshots of modified skins ARE in breach of copyright, and should only be posted if given permission by the original artist.
3) Derivative works include any image which contains the exact graphical information from an image created by another artist. This therefore includes screenshots.
4) Using your 'photo of a car' analogy: A screenshot of a skin is comparable to the blueprints of the main components of a car. A photo of a computer screen displaying a skin is comparable to a photo of a car.
I just want to make sure that you're aware of the facts, rather than simple opinion. Copyright law isn't something to be interpreted as you would a vague statement. It doesn't vary depending on good intent, but is a fixed law which very specifically states what is and is not acceptable.
It's good that Raistlin has asked others before acting, as this shows that the intent to rip is not there. However, it's our duty to him as one of the few with the good sense and manners to ask the question, to provide him with the facts.
davad70
Reply #24 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:08 AM
Reply #24 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:08 AM
Which "section" of the copyright "laws" deal specifically with screenshots of Windowblinds skins? Probably none, therefore this definitely would be an area that would require some interpretation.
grayhaze
Reply #25 Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:16 AM
Reply #25 Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:16 AM
You could also say, 'Which part of copyright law deals specifically with paintings of yellow flowers?'. I'm not saying copyright law covers each and every specific instance by name, but rather the broad medium of digital graphics as a subset of art.
If anyone really wants to get into the semantics of copyright law again, I'd be happy to post some links. I can't guarantee you'll understand the terminology, but it's all out there for you to read.
I can understand how people feel unfairly restricted by these laws, and how people will tend to argue that they're open to interpretation, but the fact remains that the law exists to protect people like us. In a perfect world we'd be free to do whatever we wanted with whatever materials we find, but until we reach that point of freedom it's better to be safe and err on the side of caution.
No matter how much you think a law is 'open to interpretation', a good lawyer will always prove you wrong.
If anyone really wants to get into the semantics of copyright law again, I'd be happy to post some links. I can't guarantee you'll understand the terminology, but it's all out there for you to read.
I can understand how people feel unfairly restricted by these laws, and how people will tend to argue that they're open to interpretation, but the fact remains that the law exists to protect people like us. In a perfect world we'd be free to do whatever we wanted with whatever materials we find, but until we reach that point of freedom it's better to be safe and err on the side of caution.
No matter how much you think a law is 'open to interpretation', a good lawyer will always prove you wrong.
grayhaze
Reply #26 Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:20 AM
Reply #26 Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:20 AM
By the way, I hate always sounding like the bitter hardass when it comes to Copyright, but I guess someone has to keep people informed. As someone who has had to deal with copyright infringment in the past, I tend to feel a responsibility to others to keep them from making mistakes.
So I hope people can at least appreciate that what I say is out of friendly concern rather than an attempt to throw my weight around.
So I hope people can at least appreciate that what I say is out of friendly concern rather than an attempt to throw my weight around.
bakerstreet
Reply #27 Saturday, August 17, 2002 4:56 PM
Reply #27 Saturday, August 17, 2002 4:56 PM
No, unfortunately you are wrong. There is no appliable use of a screenshot by those who you make it available to. It is like taking a picture of your house. Architecture is copyrightable, but there would be no violation by posting a a picture of your house, inside and out, on the internet. IF the person were posting the internal workings of the skin, a .ini or xml file for instance, I might agree with your blueprint analogy, but there is more to a skin than graphics.
What you are dealing with here is 'documentation' of a part of someone's environment, their life. It is the common practice on EVERY such site on the internet, be it gaming, customization, etc, with no implication that they crafted the content of the shot.
There are no precedents anywhere to the effect that one cannot display images of objects they own. They may not *profit* by those images, but they may express themselves to their hearts content via the US first amendment. Perhaps in the future it might become common legal thought that you aren't really owning your posessions, only the use of them, but frankly no one has tested this yet. Regardless of MS's future luck with that, there is no EULA with regard to individual skins, and if people download a skin, it is theirs to use for whatever they want until they try and distribute it. This would include taking a picture of it, just like their house, or their car. If you want to put a EULA on your work, do so, but it would be up to you to enforce it.
I don't want to be antagonistic, but this is the wrong thing to do on this thread. This is an esoteric idea that has no basis in law or practice, and yet you are telling him/her that one can't post his/her screenshot, when everyone else does. It is needlessly confusing.
Perhaps an admin will kindly post their thoughts on it, but I think 10 seconds in the screenshots would make that painfully clear.
What you are dealing with here is 'documentation' of a part of someone's environment, their life. It is the common practice on EVERY such site on the internet, be it gaming, customization, etc, with no implication that they crafted the content of the shot.
There are no precedents anywhere to the effect that one cannot display images of objects they own. They may not *profit* by those images, but they may express themselves to their hearts content via the US first amendment. Perhaps in the future it might become common legal thought that you aren't really owning your posessions, only the use of them, but frankly no one has tested this yet. Regardless of MS's future luck with that, there is no EULA with regard to individual skins, and if people download a skin, it is theirs to use for whatever they want until they try and distribute it. This would include taking a picture of it, just like their house, or their car. If you want to put a EULA on your work, do so, but it would be up to you to enforce it.
I don't want to be antagonistic, but this is the wrong thing to do on this thread. This is an esoteric idea that has no basis in law or practice, and yet you are telling him/her that one can't post his/her screenshot, when everyone else does. It is needlessly confusing.
Perhaps an admin will kindly post their thoughts on it, but I think 10 seconds in the screenshots would make that painfully clear.
bakerstreet
Reply #28 Saturday, August 17, 2002 5:12 PM
Reply #28 Saturday, August 17, 2002 5:12 PM
p.s. this is a good site to start from:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
and when they say things like "How much of another person's work can I use..." they are referring to ditributed derivative works, NOT for personal use. You can take every appliance in your kitchen apart, put them together to form an evil, man-killing robot, and then even post an image of it on Slashdot. You can't sell them though. Skins are no different.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
and when they say things like "How much of another person's work can I use..." they are referring to ditributed derivative works, NOT for personal use. You can take every appliance in your kitchen apart, put them together to form an evil, man-killing robot, and then even post an image of it on Slashdot. You can't sell them though. Skins are no different.
kith
Reply #29 Saturday, August 17, 2002 5:47 PM
Reply #29 Saturday, August 17, 2002 5:47 PM
I agree bakerstreet! If Jafo or Frogboy were inclined to comment maybe we could close this up for good. This is supposed to be fun isn't it...
bakerstreet
Reply #30 Saturday, August 17, 2002 6:51 PM
Reply #30 Saturday, August 17, 2002 6:51 PM
Just to clarify, according to section 107 of the US copyright law:
"...activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
and according to the US copyright office circular 21:
"For a work to be reproduced, its fixation in tangible form must be “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, re-produced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. Thus, the showing of images on a screen or tube would not be a violation of clause."
(while I understand that you can save a screenshot, and thereby reproduce it, you are not able through a screenshot to save the skin, i.e. the actual work, only an image of the work, which according to the first quotation would be allowable as "for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations" among others. Transfering the skin FILE, on the other hand is duplication of the product itself, and not kosher.)
again, not brow beating, jsut stating what I had assumed to be obvious.
"...activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
and according to the US copyright office circular 21:
"For a work to be reproduced, its fixation in tangible form must be “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, re-produced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. Thus, the showing of images on a screen or tube would not be a violation of clause."
(while I understand that you can save a screenshot, and thereby reproduce it, you are not able through a screenshot to save the skin, i.e. the actual work, only an image of the work, which according to the first quotation would be allowable as "for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations" among others. Transfering the skin FILE, on the other hand is duplication of the product itself, and not kosher.)
again, not brow beating, jsut stating what I had assumed to be obvious.
Jafo
Reply #31 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:09 PM
Reply #31 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:09 PM
Screenshots taken from your computer would be covered under the terms of 'fair use'.
The difference with a posted screenshot as against the photo of a building is, particularly to do with wallpapers, where the 'screenshot' is, in fact, the same or equivalent medium representation of the original. So in THAT case specifically, if one were to post a totally blank screenshot, devoid of anything other than the wall as background, they would be distributing the wall image intact to a third party without permission, which is NOT fair use of the wall.
So, as I stated up there somewhere...^^^^^ when a screenshot is posted it SHOULD show sufficient windows, etc to obscure the wall enough to prevent its re-use from that screenshot.
Screens that will and do get removed here...
Faulty uploads...
Porn....
Discriminatory/racist subject matter...
Blank screen wallpaper images that can be re-used.
It's quite a simple differentiation...
A desktop image is the equivalent of a photo of a building.
A posted wall [no obscuring] is the equivalent of copying the actual building structure....
Hope this helps a bit for those concerned about what to 'show' in a screenshot.
All that not withstanding....often, if you know the authors of the components [skins] used in the screenshot, it's considered 'nice' to give credit...
"Here's my sexy desktop....thanks to baker and grayhaze for the 'bits'"...
The difference with a posted screenshot as against the photo of a building is, particularly to do with wallpapers, where the 'screenshot' is, in fact, the same or equivalent medium representation of the original. So in THAT case specifically, if one were to post a totally blank screenshot, devoid of anything other than the wall as background, they would be distributing the wall image intact to a third party without permission, which is NOT fair use of the wall.
So, as I stated up there somewhere...^^^^^ when a screenshot is posted it SHOULD show sufficient windows, etc to obscure the wall enough to prevent its re-use from that screenshot.
Screens that will and do get removed here...
Faulty uploads...
Porn....
Discriminatory/racist subject matter...
Blank screen wallpaper images that can be re-used.
It's quite a simple differentiation...
A desktop image is the equivalent of a photo of a building.
A posted wall [no obscuring] is the equivalent of copying the actual building structure....
Hope this helps a bit for those concerned about what to 'show' in a screenshot.
All that not withstanding....often, if you know the authors of the components [skins] used in the screenshot, it's considered 'nice' to give credit...
"Here's my sexy desktop....thanks to baker and grayhaze for the 'bits'"...
grayhaze
Reply #32 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:26 PM
Reply #32 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:26 PM
The distinction I was making was between posting a screenshot of your desktop using an unmodified skin, and posting a screenshot of a skin which contains modified parts of another's work.
I'm not going to swing back and forth with bakerstreet on who is and isn't right about copyright law, but I'm perfectly happy to take appropriate action against anyone who distributes screenshots of 'modified' versions of any of my skins. I have succeeded in that very situation in the past, and pretty much guarantee that I would do so in any future breach of my copyright.
Finally, you can site 6th Amendment this and 2nd Amendment that to me, but be aware that it's not US copyright law that applies to any work I produce. It's UK law. We don't have all these strange swings and roundabouts in our version of copyright law. It's short and to the point.
A good place to start for info on our laws: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/law(01).htm
I'm not going to swing back and forth with bakerstreet on who is and isn't right about copyright law, but I'm perfectly happy to take appropriate action against anyone who distributes screenshots of 'modified' versions of any of my skins. I have succeeded in that very situation in the past, and pretty much guarantee that I would do so in any future breach of my copyright.
Finally, you can site 6th Amendment this and 2nd Amendment that to me, but be aware that it's not US copyright law that applies to any work I produce. It's UK law. We don't have all these strange swings and roundabouts in our version of copyright law. It's short and to the point.
A good place to start for info on our laws: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/law(01).htm
grayhaze
Reply #33 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:32 PM
Reply #33 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:32 PM
Okay, that link broke. Some help here?! 
By the way, yes skinning should be fun. It's the struggle to maintain the integrity of your own work afterward that makes it such a drag sometimes. On more than one occasion rippers have almost driven me to give up skinning altogether. It's only my enjoyment in creating skins that keeps me going.
I truly believe that there's no need to use parts of another's work in your own anyway. I don't, and I doubt I ever will. I prefer to use some creativity and make everything myself. The extra feeling of satisfaction on completion of the skin makes the additional time and effort worthwhile.
By the way, yes skinning should be fun. It's the struggle to maintain the integrity of your own work afterward that makes it such a drag sometimes. On more than one occasion rippers have almost driven me to give up skinning altogether. It's only my enjoyment in creating skins that keeps me going.
I truly believe that there's no need to use parts of another's work in your own anyway. I don't, and I doubt I ever will. I prefer to use some creativity and make everything myself. The extra feeling of satisfaction on completion of the skin makes the additional time and effort worthwhile.
bakerstreet
Reply #34 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:52 PM
Reply #34 Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:52 PM
Greyhaze:
The only way to protect yourself to the fullest extent of UK law would be to upload only to servers within your own country, where all the enforcement would take place under the control of the UK government. There is no way you can enforce UK law on servers outside the UK, unless you feel this is a situation where extradition or government intervention is necessary, like in the recent EU-US cheap wool and stinky cheese debate.
That is why the music industry is suing ISPs for not blocking music sharing sites in China, instead of suing the Chinese people who are sharing the music. I discussed this troubling fact on another rip thread by pointing out that many of our skins are ending up on servers in mainland asia and other, unenforcable places, and there is *nothing* we can do about it.
As an aside, the US and the UK have long-standing copyright agreements, so all the laws should be completely compatable. I'm not aware of a case where they weren't.
The only way to protect yourself to the fullest extent of UK law would be to upload only to servers within your own country, where all the enforcement would take place under the control of the UK government. There is no way you can enforce UK law on servers outside the UK, unless you feel this is a situation where extradition or government intervention is necessary, like in the recent EU-US cheap wool and stinky cheese debate.
That is why the music industry is suing ISPs for not blocking music sharing sites in China, instead of suing the Chinese people who are sharing the music. I discussed this troubling fact on another rip thread by pointing out that many of our skins are ending up on servers in mainland asia and other, unenforcable places, and there is *nothing* we can do about it.
As an aside, the US and the UK have long-standing copyright agreements, so all the laws should be completely compatable. I'm not aware of a case where they weren't.
Jafo
Reply #35 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:00 PM
Reply #35 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:00 PM
grayhaze....
This whole issue was gone through at great length on Deviantart...where numerous links and references were made to International Copyright Law, [not US-centric legislation]...and I'm an Aussie, not a Yank...
The distinction lies in what is deemed to be a violation of another's copy.
A static screenshot of another's skin, modified or not, is a wholly different kettle of fish from an actual uploaded skin, altered or not.
The latter is a clear and distinct breach of the author's copyright and would be dealt with accordingly, [and is].
The former can be argued in court that it's use is still 'private' and incidental to the original artist's public release of the work.
Quick bit of background...I've been involved in Architecture, and the design of buildings and the protecting of their rights of copy for just on 30 years......eventually you are left wondering just how many ways there are of drawing an 8x10 bedroom without 'copying' someone...
I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the display of another's skin via a screenshot...what I DO see a problem with is the UNLAWFUL re-distribution of anothers actual skins, whether under the correct authorship or 'ripped'...either of those is in violation of the Original author's rights...
This whole issue was gone through at great length on Deviantart...where numerous links and references were made to International Copyright Law, [not US-centric legislation]...and I'm an Aussie, not a Yank...
The distinction lies in what is deemed to be a violation of another's copy.
A static screenshot of another's skin, modified or not, is a wholly different kettle of fish from an actual uploaded skin, altered or not.
The latter is a clear and distinct breach of the author's copyright and would be dealt with accordingly, [and is].
The former can be argued in court that it's use is still 'private' and incidental to the original artist's public release of the work.
Quick bit of background...I've been involved in Architecture, and the design of buildings and the protecting of their rights of copy for just on 30 years......eventually you are left wondering just how many ways there are of drawing an 8x10 bedroom without 'copying' someone...
I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the display of another's skin via a screenshot...what I DO see a problem with is the UNLAWFUL re-distribution of anothers actual skins, whether under the correct authorship or 'ripped'...either of those is in violation of the Original author's rights...
Jafo
Reply #36 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:29 PM
Reply #36 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:29 PM
The whole debate rose around digital manipulated art...particularly of photographs [chick-walls being a prime example].
Some 'degrees of distinction'...
1. You paint a picture in oils from eye-balling a seascape.
[no problem there, unless you think 'God' my get uptight]
2. You paint a picture in oils from eye-balling a photograph.
[concerns of photographer's composition of subject, but it's a different medium in particular, so less of an intrusion of 'copy']
3. You paint in Photoshop/whatever...digitally from a photograph.
[same issues as with '2'].
4. You paint in Photoshop/whatever...digitally from a 'digital' photograph - scanned in.
[now things are getting 'hazy', as both the source and the product are the identical medium...both bitmaps, say. Now we are in the realm of 'reproductions', more akin than the $20 print of the Picasso you buy at the market.]
5. You cut and paste in Photoshop/whatever parts of the scanned photograph, adding clever [
] lens-flares and such as your personal artistic 'interpretation'.
[now we are specifically at the level of 'plagiarizing' that is endemic in Digital art and skinning, requiring lots of effort to argue and eradicate.]
6. You simply grab that scanned photograph and, using Photoshop/whatever, plonk your name on the bottom and post the 'work'.
[NOW you are a straight, fair-dinkum RIPPER].
Level '5' is where we tend to regard 'borrowed' similarities in skins....[you used MY buttons!!!]....but that is only an issue if the product is uploaded for public dispersal...in other words, the actual 'altered' skin is uploaded.
A screenshot is not an 'actual skin'.
If someone were to DL the screen and reverse-engineer a skin from the shot then THAT subsequent product, if publicly distributed would be in violation of both parties...the ORIGINAL skin artist, AND the poster of the screenshot.
I'll duck over to Devart, catch up with RealitySquared....he's got all the relevant links to Copyrights and their use Net-wise...
Some 'degrees of distinction'...
1. You paint a picture in oils from eye-balling a seascape.
[no problem there, unless you think 'God' my get uptight]
2. You paint a picture in oils from eye-balling a photograph.
[concerns of photographer's composition of subject, but it's a different medium in particular, so less of an intrusion of 'copy']
3. You paint in Photoshop/whatever...digitally from a photograph.
[same issues as with '2'].
4. You paint in Photoshop/whatever...digitally from a 'digital' photograph - scanned in.
[now things are getting 'hazy', as both the source and the product are the identical medium...both bitmaps, say. Now we are in the realm of 'reproductions', more akin than the $20 print of the Picasso you buy at the market.]
5. You cut and paste in Photoshop/whatever parts of the scanned photograph, adding clever [
] lens-flares and such as your personal artistic 'interpretation'.[now we are specifically at the level of 'plagiarizing' that is endemic in Digital art and skinning, requiring lots of effort to argue and eradicate.]
6. You simply grab that scanned photograph and, using Photoshop/whatever, plonk your name on the bottom and post the 'work'.
[NOW you are a straight, fair-dinkum RIPPER].
Level '5' is where we tend to regard 'borrowed' similarities in skins....[you used MY buttons!!!]....but that is only an issue if the product is uploaded for public dispersal...in other words, the actual 'altered' skin is uploaded.
A screenshot is not an 'actual skin'.
If someone were to DL the screen and reverse-engineer a skin from the shot then THAT subsequent product, if publicly distributed would be in violation of both parties...the ORIGINAL skin artist, AND the poster of the screenshot.
I'll duck over to Devart, catch up with RealitySquared....he's got all the relevant links to Copyrights and their use Net-wise...
Jafo
Reply #37 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:35 PM
Reply #37 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:35 PM
You know, If I had $10 dollars for each post I have made on the subject of Artist's Rights I would probably be over there in the US, sunning myself on the beaches of So Cal, instead of here in a crummy winter...
Z71
Reply #38 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:37 PM
Reply #38 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:37 PM
Let me ask this. Pixtudio's (Pixtudio_WB) didn't come with XP. I have updated it, (Added all the XP stuff). So this is my question. Can I upload it to show people my new desktop or do I need the original authors permission?
Z71
Reply #39 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:42 PM
Reply #39 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:42 PM
I just realised I probably opened up a can of worms because you have to pay for that WB. I just used that as an example. Lets just say any WB.
Jafo
Reply #40 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:51 PM
Reply #40 Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:51 PM
As a point of interest, I've just completed a LiteSTEP theme using Misery's 'Nijikon Fetchi' wall as both background, and, cut up, as ALL of the other graphics, etc [popups and such].
Now, the 'coding' is all mine...the 'realisation' is all mine, but the actual digital pixels are ALL Misery's.
Not a problem. I CAN make it. I CANNOT distribute it, and, considering that the ENTIRE subject-matter is Misery's, and not 'mine', I even refrain from showing even 'bits' of it.
I have his permission to use the wall...but I still do not display the theme, as he said he'd like to see it...[not 'first', but I'm giving him the option to see it and perhaps withdraw consent].
If and when he responds, I'll upload it, with credits, as the art is all his [only its implementation is mine]...
But again, this is somewhat of a more 'extreme' case than the 'usual' screenshot, and is common practice in LiteSTEP themeing.
Screw up on the 'appropriate' protocol and it could be the last time someone 'lets' you use his work.
All that aside, if an individual Artist has specific complaint about one of his works/skins being displayed in whatever form via a screenshot posted here on Wincustomize, let me know, and it will be dealt-with.
We are here to protect your 'Work', so if you believe you have an instance of its 'use' at odds with your preference then it can be removed.
Now, the 'coding' is all mine...the 'realisation' is all mine, but the actual digital pixels are ALL Misery's.
Not a problem. I CAN make it. I CANNOT distribute it, and, considering that the ENTIRE subject-matter is Misery's, and not 'mine', I even refrain from showing even 'bits' of it.
I have his permission to use the wall...but I still do not display the theme, as he said he'd like to see it...[not 'first', but I'm giving him the option to see it and perhaps withdraw consent].
If and when he responds, I'll upload it, with credits, as the art is all his [only its implementation is mine]...
But again, this is somewhat of a more 'extreme' case than the 'usual' screenshot, and is common practice in LiteSTEP themeing.
Screw up on the 'appropriate' protocol and it could be the last time someone 'lets' you use his work.
All that aside, if an individual Artist has specific complaint about one of his works/skins being displayed in whatever form via a screenshot posted here on Wincustomize, let me know, and it will be dealt-with.
We are here to protect your 'Work', so if you believe you have an instance of its 'use' at odds with your preference then it can be removed.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:36 AM