Review of Object Desktop in PC Zone Magazine
Tuesday, April 29, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I just bought the June issue of the UK magazine PC Zone for the big preview of Half-Life 2, and happened to notice a mini-review of Object Desktop in an article about making your computer 'cool'.
Quote:
"Products such as Stardock's Object Desktop can be downloaded in a flash, and allow you to tweak and fiddle with the default appearance of Windows by reshaping its look and feel. The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful, but if you couple Object Desktop with Winbar, which gives at-a-glance readouts of Godzilla's vital signs, you'll have something truly awesome."
Then elsewhere:
"Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess. Chalk up some points for being weird."
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding these comments downright offensive. They also lay into CursorXP by basically saying it's totally uncool.
Who knows where these so-called journalists learn to talk about this stuff, but it seems to me that they probably haven't even tried to research for the article. They probably just read an ill-informed comment on a forum somewhere and thought they'd add it to their copy.
If you'd like to give them some feedback on their journalistic integrity, you might like to e-mail their letters page at '[email protected]'.
By the way, if you want to give Winbar a go to improve your horribly disfigured desktop after using Stardock's products, go to http://www.winbar.nl .
Quote:
"Products such as Stardock's Object Desktop can be downloaded in a flash, and allow you to tweak and fiddle with the default appearance of Windows by reshaping its look and feel. The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful, but if you couple Object Desktop with Winbar, which gives at-a-glance readouts of Godzilla's vital signs, you'll have something truly awesome."
Then elsewhere:
"Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess. Chalk up some points for being weird."
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding these comments downright offensive. They also lay into CursorXP by basically saying it's totally uncool.
Who knows where these so-called journalists learn to talk about this stuff, but it seems to me that they probably haven't even tried to research for the article. They probably just read an ill-informed comment on a forum somewhere and thought they'd add it to their copy.
If you'd like to give them some feedback on their journalistic integrity, you might like to e-mail their letters page at '[email protected]'.
By the way, if you want to give Winbar a go to improve your horribly disfigured desktop after using Stardock's products, go to http://www.winbar.nl .
 |
|
Page 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
White_Moth
Reply #2 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:36 AM
Reply #2 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:36 AM
Just another cheap shot at trying to look important at the expense of someone else.
If their product is "so good', why do they need OD to go with it?
To earn my money, it takes more than product, it takes a business filled with real people who have decency and sensibilities, and have the courage to stand on their own two feet.
If their product is "so good', why do they need OD to go with it?
To earn my money, it takes more than product, it takes a business filled with real people who have decency and sensibilities, and have the courage to stand on their own two feet.
sig101
Reply #3 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:46 AM
Reply #3 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:46 AM
I wonder what examples they have of "blatant copyright theft?"
Also, their remarks are like saying clothes make people offensively garish looking. It all depends on what one wears, doesn't it? If one wishes to make a garish desktop one can, but with so many choices it all depends on the user. Very odd.
Also, their remarks are like saying clothes make people offensively garish looking. It all depends on what one wears, doesn't it? If one wishes to make a garish desktop one can, but with so many choices it all depends on the user. Very odd.
moshi
Reply #4 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:47 AM
Reply #4 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:47 AM
sig101: all those MacOS rips probably (about 15-20% of the ObjectBar library).
bakerstreet
Reply #5 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:32 AM
Reply #5 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:32 AM
"blatant copyright theft?"
Unfortunately, this is not all that inaccurate if you consider the use of icons here. The fact is, Icons are a 'work', and if you redistribute them, or use them to create a derivative icon or shortcut graphic, you have 'ripped'.
We understand that distributing a re-colored version of, say, a copperdeck icon without permission would be ripping. Requesting such would be met with backhanded suggestions to contact the author. If the same person asks for themed version of a Photoshop or other commercially produced icon, they usually get it. There have even been threads here in the past that asked what apps people needed icons for.
I know it is a sore subject, but the fact that post #60 by moshi on the 'Overdog' thread: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?id=138131&BID=WC&page=1#139472 wasn't acknowledged is still bothering me as well. As recently as last night I was really pondering if it was hypocritical to hold DevArt and others to such a high standard and yet be supportive here.
WC ignoring copyright violations in the login section is no different than Devart ignoring them in their wallpaper section. Great effort has been made there to heed violations in all sections, and they have a hellish flow to keep up with. If someone reports a few of the logins that Moshi linked here, will they be removed?
Unfortunately, this is not all that inaccurate if you consider the use of icons here. The fact is, Icons are a 'work', and if you redistribute them, or use them to create a derivative icon or shortcut graphic, you have 'ripped'.
We understand that distributing a re-colored version of, say, a copperdeck icon without permission would be ripping. Requesting such would be met with backhanded suggestions to contact the author. If the same person asks for themed version of a Photoshop or other commercially produced icon, they usually get it. There have even been threads here in the past that asked what apps people needed icons for.
I know it is a sore subject, but the fact that post #60 by moshi on the 'Overdog' thread: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?id=138131&BID=WC&page=1#139472 wasn't acknowledged is still bothering me as well. As recently as last night I was really pondering if it was hypocritical to hold DevArt and others to such a high standard and yet be supportive here.
WC ignoring copyright violations in the login section is no different than Devart ignoring them in their wallpaper section. Great effort has been made there to heed violations in all sections, and they have a hellish flow to keep up with. If someone reports a few of the logins that Moshi linked here, will they be removed?
moshi
Reply #6 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:33 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:33 PM
here´s some "blatant copyright theft?". have a look into the Dashboard section those are just the most obvious ones, there´s plenty more illegal stuff (copyrighting Open Source, stealing icons, etc.):
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=451
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=427
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=399
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=383
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=379
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=224
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=344
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=111
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=313
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=305
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=302
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=291
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=262
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=260
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=253
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=243
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=241
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=236
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=228
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=216
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=227
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=185
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=179
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=156
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=150
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=147
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=122
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=102
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=88
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=86
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=84
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=83
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=82
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=43
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=37
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=5
those are just the most obvious ones, there´s plenty more illegal stuff (copyrighting Open Source, stealing icons, etc.):https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=451
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=427
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=399
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=383
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=379
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=224
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=344
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=111
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=313
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=305
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=302
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=291
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=262
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=260
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=253
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=243
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=241
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=236
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=228
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=216
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=227
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=185
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=179
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=156
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=150
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=147
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=122
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=102
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=88
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=86
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=84
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=83
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=82
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=43
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=37
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=5
mooshoo
Reply #7 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:36 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:36 PM
It's really sad what the United States press/Journalism has become. Freedom of the press wasn't meant to mean freedom to print whatever the hell you want regardless of proof or bias :-/
bakerstreet
Reply #8 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:02 PM
Reply #8 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:02 PM
"Freedom of the press wasn't meant to mean freedom to print whatever the hell you want regardless of proof or bias :-/"
hrm. Honestly, though, a 'review' is kinda subjective by definition, wouldn't ya say? Go back and you'll find bad reviews for the greatest movies of all time. Is reviewing software any different? When people read a movie review, they understand that it is the opinion of the reviewer, and ignore it as they see fit.
The productivity benefits of Object desktop are not something that the average windows user is gonna understand without a little prompting. If the average user walked up to my PC with LS or Talisman running, it would be almost completely foreign, and therefore unusable. Given a week, though, they would be twice as productive as they were without it.
There are bad reviewers and good ones. The good ones would use OD for a month. A bad one would behave like a bad movie reviewer; they'd read a synopsis, watch the first ten minutes, and hack it to death...
I don't think that saying "Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess" is much different than saying Star Wars was an infantile mess full of bad actors. Both are potentially damaging to the endeavor, but the format gives them the right to state their opinion, however pig headed it may be.
**
I am very interested in seeing what will said about the 'copyright' statement. I hope it won't be ignored this time.
hrm. Honestly, though, a 'review' is kinda subjective by definition, wouldn't ya say? Go back and you'll find bad reviews for the greatest movies of all time. Is reviewing software any different? When people read a movie review, they understand that it is the opinion of the reviewer, and ignore it as they see fit.
The productivity benefits of Object desktop are not something that the average windows user is gonna understand without a little prompting. If the average user walked up to my PC with LS or Talisman running, it would be almost completely foreign, and therefore unusable. Given a week, though, they would be twice as productive as they were without it.
There are bad reviewers and good ones. The good ones would use OD for a month. A bad one would behave like a bad movie reviewer; they'd read a synopsis, watch the first ten minutes, and hack it to death...
I don't think that saying "Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess" is much different than saying Star Wars was an infantile mess full of bad actors. Both are potentially damaging to the endeavor, but the format gives them the right to state their opinion, however pig headed it may be.
**
I am very interested in seeing what will said about the 'copyright' statement. I hope it won't be ignored this time.
sig101
Reply #9 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:50 PM
Reply #9 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:50 PM
Mooshoo: it's a UK mag, not a US mag.
Also, journalism has always had its hacks. And today's journalism (by largely reputable publications at least) is considerably better, although not perfect, compared to the days of the "yellow press" as late as the early 20th century. When if you don't have a story, you can make one up and the facts to suit. Not to say that doesn't happen today either, but it's not as widely accepted and usually people get fired when they're found out.
Then there's the tension point between opinion vs. fact especially in a product review. However, I think the Brit libel/slander laws actually are more strict than those of the US.
Also, journalism has always had its hacks. And today's journalism (by largely reputable publications at least) is considerably better, although not perfect, compared to the days of the "yellow press" as late as the early 20th century. When if you don't have a story, you can make one up and the facts to suit. Not to say that doesn't happen today either, but it's not as widely accepted and usually people get fired when they're found out.
Then there's the tension point between opinion vs. fact especially in a product review. However, I think the Brit libel/slander laws actually are more strict than those of the US.
bakerstreet
Reply #11 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:15 PM
Reply #11 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:15 PM
I wish I could read the article. No online version?
People spend 100 million or more to make a movie and get reviews like "If you have the urge to go see this movie slap yourself and stay at home"... There is a pretty high standard for criminalizing a review. Were ther any totally false claims made? I wish I could read it.
**
bakerstreet glances back at post #7...
People spend 100 million or more to make a movie and get reviews like "If you have the urge to go see this movie slap yourself and stay at home"... There is a pretty high standard for criminalizing a review. Were ther any totally false claims made? I wish I could read it.
**
bakerstreet glances back at post #7...
Jafo
Reply #12 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:24 PM
Reply #12 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:24 PM
moshi...I don't think I've moderated anything at all in the Dashboard section, as I don't use the proggy...
If there's problems with stuff there then I'll have a look.
The 'line in the sand' relating to the use of proprietary icons in 'one's' work is, that if the icon [eg, Photoshop] is used to create a shortcut/graphic/thingie to click on for an interface or GUI not originally supported by Adobe...[eg a LiteSTEP shortcut] then that is 'fair-use' of the icon, provided of course its intended use is to launch Photoshop from that GUI. This is an enhancement or extension of the original intended function of the icon.
If the SUBSEQUENT modified icon/shortcut/thingie is used and altered by a third party then this can constitute a 'rip'.
If an icon/graphic/thingie is an individual, unique creation intended only to launch Photoshop, but contains no Adobe content at all then it's not 'fair-use' but a free-standing creation in its own right and again, any copy/imitation/use constitutes a rip.
'Fair use' would not include using the Adobe Photoshop icon in a icon/shortcut/thingie to launch Jasc's Paintshop Pro.
Skinners in particular are creating GUI extensions/replacements that the program creators were unaware of when they embedded their proggy icons in their dlls, etc for access by the OS. Perhaps it would be clever of them to include the numerous permutations of icons and pics to 'extract' for GUI customizing purposes/alternatives....but they don't. All we have to work with is the OS 'embedded' icon/s, so that's what is used.
I personally see no problem with that, and I'm willing to bet that any of the Proggy creators would be happy with it, too.
The only single entity who has voiced 'displeasure' is Apple, so currently, anything uploaded or updated which includes specific trademarks or Logos in particular gets the chop.
Cross-pollinating OS GUIs may be 'fun', but if a Manufacturer doesn't see it that way then our hands 'should' be tied.
The problem specific to icons and their ripping is that there are so many of them around, and they are so relatively small and comparatively indistinguishable, that many 'rips' may and I'm sure, do exist on any/every site...and are a nightmare to police.
Looks like today I won't be drawing a Medical Centre and earning a living....I'll be rip-hunting yet again....
What pisses me off is that I can go to Customize.org and be confronted with comments about how poorly 'copyright' is handled here at Wincustomize.com.
What a joke.
If there's problems with stuff there then I'll have a look.
The 'line in the sand' relating to the use of proprietary icons in 'one's' work is, that if the icon [eg, Photoshop] is used to create a shortcut/graphic/thingie to click on for an interface or GUI not originally supported by Adobe...[eg a LiteSTEP shortcut] then that is 'fair-use' of the icon, provided of course its intended use is to launch Photoshop from that GUI. This is an enhancement or extension of the original intended function of the icon.
If the SUBSEQUENT modified icon/shortcut/thingie is used and altered by a third party then this can constitute a 'rip'.
If an icon/graphic/thingie is an individual, unique creation intended only to launch Photoshop, but contains no Adobe content at all then it's not 'fair-use' but a free-standing creation in its own right and again, any copy/imitation/use constitutes a rip.
'Fair use' would not include using the Adobe Photoshop icon in a icon/shortcut/thingie to launch Jasc's Paintshop Pro.
Skinners in particular are creating GUI extensions/replacements that the program creators were unaware of when they embedded their proggy icons in their dlls, etc for access by the OS. Perhaps it would be clever of them to include the numerous permutations of icons and pics to 'extract' for GUI customizing purposes/alternatives....but they don't. All we have to work with is the OS 'embedded' icon/s, so that's what is used.
I personally see no problem with that, and I'm willing to bet that any of the Proggy creators would be happy with it, too.
The only single entity who has voiced 'displeasure' is Apple, so currently, anything uploaded or updated which includes specific trademarks or Logos in particular gets the chop.
Cross-pollinating OS GUIs may be 'fun', but if a Manufacturer doesn't see it that way then our hands 'should' be tied.
The problem specific to icons and their ripping is that there are so many of them around, and they are so relatively small and comparatively indistinguishable, that many 'rips' may and I'm sure, do exist on any/every site...and are a nightmare to police.
Looks like today I won't be drawing a Medical Centre and earning a living....I'll be rip-hunting yet again....
What pisses me off is that I can go to Customize.org and be confronted with comments about how poorly 'copyright' is handled here at Wincustomize.com.
What a joke.
LazyDawg
Reply #13 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:24 PM
Reply #13 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:24 PM
Just remember most of these reviewers are "critics" and remember the root of that word; all they ever seem to do is criticize (not a cue for a song). 
Just form your own opinion, don't listen to other's.
Just form your own opinion, don't listen to other's.
Jafo
Reply #14 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:35 PM
Reply #14 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:35 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'....
Primarily there are background images [photoskins] that perhaps shouldn't be there.
Something will be 'done'....
Jafo
Reply #15 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:41 PM
Reply #15 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:41 PM
Just remember...if there were to be NO 'free use' consideration given to proprietary icon use/reprodution....then probably every single screenshot on the internet would be a violation of copyright....probably hundreds of millions of them.
I may be conscientious, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going after all of those, OK?
I may be conscientious, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going after all of those, OK?
Jafo
Reply #16 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:02 PM
Reply #16 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:02 PM
baker...re post #6....I'd lost that list and the link.
Thanks for posting it...
Thanks for posting it...
bakerstreet
Reply #17 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:19 PM
Reply #17 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:19 PM
"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of 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."
There is enough slack in the definition for debate, but I really don't think that re-colored and extracted, re-packaged icons would be 'fair use'. For personal use, maybe, but I think the sticky part is the extraction and redistribution.
**
As for screenshots, my understanding was the legality was based upon:
"incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
In our case the desktop is being visually archived, not unlike an image posted of one's own car with various tradmarked logos on the tires, customized parts, etc. The icons aren't .icon files, and they are being recorded on a desktop as they are being lawfully used by the author. I don't think that is a problem.
There is enough slack in the definition for debate, but I really don't think that re-colored and extracted, re-packaged icons would be 'fair use'. For personal use, maybe, but I think the sticky part is the extraction and redistribution.
**
As for screenshots, my understanding was the legality was based upon:
"incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
In our case the desktop is being visually archived, not unlike an image posted of one's own car with various tradmarked logos on the tires, customized parts, etc. The icons aren't .icon files, and they are being recorded on a desktop as they are being lawfully used by the author. I don't think that is a problem.
grayhaze
Reply #18 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:34 PM
Reply #18 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:34 PM
That is actually the entirety of the article bakerstreet, at least so far as Object Desktop is concerned. The rest talks about graphics cards, monitors and suchlike.
The main problem I had with what they said was the idea that Object Desktop, which in itself is a collection of several independant applications, is painted with such a broad brush, and with little real knowledge of the product or the skins available. They seem to think that simply installing Object Desktop on your system makes it unuseable and counter-productive.
Perhaps Frogboy should get in contact with the magazine and request that they do a proper review of the product and take into account more than just wrongly-held misconceptions amongst the 'popular' online forums. I'd be more than happy to have my skins put forward as an example of just how unuseable a desktop can be...
The main problem I had with what they said was the idea that Object Desktop, which in itself is a collection of several independant applications, is painted with such a broad brush, and with little real knowledge of the product or the skins available. They seem to think that simply installing Object Desktop on your system makes it unuseable and counter-productive.
Perhaps Frogboy should get in contact with the magazine and request that they do a proper review of the product and take into account more than just wrongly-held misconceptions amongst the 'popular' online forums. I'd be more than happy to have my skins put forward as an example of just how unuseable a desktop can be...
mooshoo
Reply #19 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:46 PM
Reply #19 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:46 PM
bakerstreet, I agree with what you're saying, however there is a fine line between an honest opinion on software in comparison to simple trash talking.
"Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess"
If he actualy did a little research you will know FOR A FACT that that statement is false. There are many skins in fact that TONE DOWN the gawdy windows interface.
"Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess"
If he actualy did a little research you will know FOR A FACT that that statement is false. There are many skins in fact that TONE DOWN the gawdy windows interface.
Jafo
Reply #20 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:09 PM
Reply #20 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:09 PM
baker...in 1961 there were no icons [as we know them in computer terms].
In 1961 ther was no GUI.
In 1961 the concept of extending functionality of a program interface/shortcut was not contemplated or imagined as a potential 'issue'.
Until officially told otherwise by Supreme/High Court ruling or contested example I think the concept of 'extension' of an icon's use with regards to a program launcher is a fair and legitimate one.
Failing that, it is neither my place nor yours, or rather is it within the realms of our capacity or capability to effectively reverse this 'belief' or 'trend'.
Pedantry would not distinguish between 'extraction and distribution' as applied to an image/shortcut containing an icon, and the 'extraction and distribution' of a screnshot image containing an icon.
They are identical. Both are images containing 'proprietary' content.
In 1961 ther was no GUI.
In 1961 the concept of extending functionality of a program interface/shortcut was not contemplated or imagined as a potential 'issue'.
Until officially told otherwise by Supreme/High Court ruling or contested example I think the concept of 'extension' of an icon's use with regards to a program launcher is a fair and legitimate one.
Failing that, it is neither my place nor yours, or rather is it within the realms of our capacity or capability to effectively reverse this 'belief' or 'trend'.
Pedantry would not distinguish between 'extraction and distribution' as applied to an image/shortcut containing an icon, and the 'extraction and distribution' of a screnshot image containing an icon.
They are identical. Both are images containing 'proprietary' content.
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 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:19 AM