Copy writed Wallpaper
Sunday, November 24, 2002 by Delicious | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Sorry if this is a stupid question or has been asked in another post.
Can a wallpaper that someone has online as a download be used in a Windowblinds screenshot if the author neglects to answer requests for permission?
Can a wallpaper that someone has online as a download be used in a Windowblinds screenshot if the author neglects to answer requests for permission?
Angel_Wings
Reply #2 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:10 PM
Reply #2 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:10 PM
-But, don't take my word for it...wait until one of the "big bosses" give an opinion here. 
bakerstreet
Reply #3 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:27 PM
Reply #3 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:27 PM
That is a bit in question, if I recall the past conversaion. As far as I know, on this particular site screenshots are fine, as long as you cover up enough of the wallpaper so that people can't just clip it out.
My perspecitve is that a screenshot is a documentation of your desktop, and therefore the wallpaper is fair, or even incedental, use. I would suggest linking it and giving credit for those that want their stuff to match as you have yours. Of course including it in the zip is a no-no, regardless of credit.
If I remember correctly paxx disaggrees... i think it was paxx. That was altered skins, though, not wallpapers.
My perspecitve is that a screenshot is a documentation of your desktop, and therefore the wallpaper is fair, or even incedental, use. I would suggest linking it and giving credit for those that want their stuff to match as you have yours. Of course including it in the zip is a no-no, regardless of credit.
If I remember correctly paxx disaggrees... i think it was paxx. That was altered skins, though, not wallpapers.
paxx
Reply #4 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:28 PM
Reply #4 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:28 PM
No permissions required for screenshots. In a screenshot your are not distributing the wallpaper, so it's fine.
But if the wallpaper was included in the WB skin, then it'd be a whole different matter.
But if the wallpaper was included in the WB skin, then it'd be a whole different matter.
paxx
Reply #5 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:38 PM
Reply #5 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:38 PM
What do I disagree to again, bakerstreet? 
What you said seems perfectly right to me.
Lemme think. Altered skins... Hum...
Oh! I know! Yes, I disagree that one should post a screenshot of a port or altered skin before getting permission from the original author to distribute it.
My reasonning is different in that case: I believe that if I asked you permission to port a skin of yours, then post a screenshot before you have a chance to say yes or no, it almost puts you in a position where you are foced to accept because if you refuse everybody thinks your a arsehole.
But otherwise, when there is no intention ever to distribute the wallpaper or the skin, then no harm is done.
What you said seems perfectly right to me.
Lemme think. Altered skins... Hum...
Oh! I know! Yes, I disagree that one should post a screenshot of a port or altered skin before getting permission from the original author to distribute it.
My reasonning is different in that case: I believe that if I asked you permission to port a skin of yours, then post a screenshot before you have a chance to say yes or no, it almost puts you in a position where you are foced to accept because if you refuse everybody thinks your a arsehole.
But otherwise, when there is no intention ever to distribute the wallpaper or the skin, then no harm is done.
Mercury
Reply #7 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:13 PM
Reply #7 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:13 PM
As for altered skins, I look at it a bit differently. I was recently asked if one of my skins could be uploaded as a port for another program but told him to upload a shot here to see what it looked like and to see how others react to it. No permission yet, as I'd like to see a few things changed. Am I an arse? I think not. It's my skin after all and maintaining it's quality no matter what program it's on is my responsibility. 
Koasati
Reply #8 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:39 PM
Reply #8 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:39 PM
I agree that walls in screenshots should be obscured enough not to be useable. Unless it's your own.
btw.... it's copyright... copyrighted...
btw.... it's copyright... copyrighted...
Delicious
Reply #9 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:46 PM
Reply #9 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:46 PM
Thanks for the input
I couldn't decide if it was wrong or not.
Seems if a wall is online for download then it is there for everyone to use if not for profit.
I couldn't decide if it was wrong or not.
Seems if a wall is online for download then it is there for everyone to use if not for profit.
Koasati
Reply #10 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:59 PM
Reply #10 Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:59 PM
Well that kind of thinking is the main justification for ripping. "I found it on the web, so I can do anything I want with it." When I upload a wall/skin here, I give WC permission to distribute it........ I do not give anyone else permission to distribute it. That's what copyright is all about, the "right" to "copy". Doesn't matter if you're making money or not.
http://www.rightsforartists.com/siteindex.html
http://www.rightsforartists.com/siteindex.html
bakerstreet
Reply #11 Sunday, November 24, 2002 6:37 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, November 24, 2002 6:37 PM
Sally: unfortunately, what appears 'free' is not always free. An example.
Let's say I upload a wallpaper here. Another person comes a long and downloads it, and puts it on his site in a way that anyone can grab it. He may not be charging money for it, but what if he has a banner? Your wallpaper/skins/icons, etc. are content, which generates traffic, which generates revenue. Shouldn't you have the right to say who you want to make money for?
That's what people don't understand about 'fan art' and the like. If you take a picture of a celeb and post it against their will, 99% of the time someone is making money off it. All those 'babe' sites have no other content other than stolen likenesses. They are businesses totally built upon theft. That's why I am so grumpy about seeing such material on sites in this community.
Like I say, though, screenshots are incidental inclusion, but if the wallpaper makes your stuff look extra good, one ought to share the credit. I don't mind people using mine that way.
Let's say I upload a wallpaper here. Another person comes a long and downloads it, and puts it on his site in a way that anyone can grab it. He may not be charging money for it, but what if he has a banner? Your wallpaper/skins/icons, etc. are content, which generates traffic, which generates revenue. Shouldn't you have the right to say who you want to make money for?
That's what people don't understand about 'fan art' and the like. If you take a picture of a celeb and post it against their will, 99% of the time someone is making money off it. All those 'babe' sites have no other content other than stolen likenesses. They are businesses totally built upon theft. That's why I am so grumpy about seeing such material on sites in this community.
Like I say, though, screenshots are incidental inclusion, but if the wallpaper makes your stuff look extra good, one ought to share the credit. I don't mind people using mine that way.
Delicious
Reply #12 Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:28 PM
Reply #12 Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:28 PM
What I want to do is use the background in the screenshot because I made the skin from the colors in the wall.
I know colors are not copywrited.
I plan on including a link to the wall where it was found. I don't know if I can include the author's name since no permission has been received.
My last comment was cut short and I should have finished it before posting. My apologies.
I don't like to step on anyone's work because I know how much time and thought are put into each piece and each are an extention of the author.
I know colors are not copywrited.
I plan on including a link to the wall where it was found. I don't know if I can include the author's name since no permission has been received.
My last comment was cut short and I should have finished it before posting. My apologies.
I don't like to step on anyone's work because I know how much time and thought are put into each piece and each are an extention of the author.
Angel_Wings
Reply #13 Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:17 PM
Reply #13 Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:17 PM
Another "icky" scenario could also be...someone includes art from an author (without authorization) but *does include the author's website and contact info and credits to the artist* but let's say this website advertises porn and smut etc. and who knows what else *shiver* and suddenly it looks like YOU are supporting that site by the sheer fact that your art is residing there with credits an' all. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! 
But as far as Wincustomize is concerned, they are pretty good about keeping things set straight.
But as far as Wincustomize is concerned, they are pretty good about keeping things set straight.
Jafo
Reply #14 Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:19 PM
Reply #14 Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:19 PM
Be sure to reasonably obscure the wall in a screenshot to prevent its 're-use' as a wall.
A credit is a courtesy, but a link to the wall may not necessarily be one, as there 'could' be an issue of having the wall made accessible from a site [say, here] without some form of permission for the link to be distributed....bit of a 'stretch' but still a potential problem...
A credit is a courtesy, but a link to the wall may not necessarily be one, as there 'could' be an issue of having the wall made accessible from a site [say, here] without some form of permission for the link to be distributed....bit of a 'stretch' but still a potential problem...
Delicious
Reply #15 Monday, November 25, 2002 5:44 AM
Reply #15 Monday, November 25, 2002 5:44 AM
thanks Jafo
that is a point that I didn't think of
From my experience when I monitored web page content for Talk City, when we came across copywrited material (obvious material) the owner of the page would have 5 days to remove it before legal action would be taken.
I don't know what that has to do with anything but thought I would throw that pre-coffee thought in.
that is a point that I didn't think of
From my experience when I monitored web page content for Talk City, when we came across copywrited material (obvious material) the owner of the page would have 5 days to remove it before legal action would be taken.
I don't know what that has to do with anything but thought I would throw that pre-coffee thought in.
Koasati
Reply #16 Monday, November 25, 2002 9:18 AM
Reply #16 Monday, November 25, 2002 9:18 AM
Sally ...please...... copyRIGHT.... not copywrite.
paxx
Reply #17 Monday, November 25, 2002 9:36 AM
Reply #17 Monday, November 25, 2002 9:36 AM
Yeah. Copy may not necessarely be written, be it's gotta be right.
Delicious
Reply #18 Monday, November 25, 2002 3:38 PM
Reply #18 Monday, November 25, 2002 3:38 PM
Thank you Koasati. I always wondered why copywrite kept coming up on the spellchecker 
Delicious
Reply #19 Monday, November 25, 2002 3:46 PM
Reply #19 Monday, November 25, 2002 3:46 PM
Sally shakes the spellchecker and allot, alot and a lot came out.
Witch one is rite.
Witch one is rite.
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!
Reply #1 Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:07 PM