If a rip is a rip then MacOS clones = rip
Thursday, August 7, 2003 by Doomgaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Including the interface.
So isn't every Mac clone considered a rip?
Even if its "very similar"?
I mean, people get their skins pulled when its in "likeness" to skins made by those who make money off their skins.
So why are Mac clone skins allowed?
You're ripping off Apple.
If you want the interface then buy a Mac.
discuss.
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Friday, August 8, 2003 12:00 AM
If I owned my own site, hosting other people's skins, ports, walls, etc....and held an absolute totalitarian attitude to the acceptance or non-acceptance of what was hosted....it would not just be Britney's walls that would get the cull....but anything and everything remotely considered to be 'borrowed' without consent.
Wincustomize.com is not 'my' site...it is 'our' site....belonging to its inherent community, which, I might add is not merely the vocal few on this board...who number perhaps in the hundreds, but all of the 680,000 plus people who have taken the effort to become members to interact with the site at whatever level that may be.
Even the 'pointy end of the stick' is a populous one and is not an autonomous entity.
Call it decision by committee or decision by majority, but if truth be known 'OS Ports' are popular, as are any recognizable GUI interfaces.
On a personal level, not 'official policy', I enjoy the concept of porting one entity into another dissimilar proggy....like the challenge of creating a WinAMP skin using 'elements' from another's wallpaper....something I've done on a number of occasions...[though my 'best' cannot be released as I still get no response from the wall artist].
Skinning is all about altering a GUI....and that makes alternate OS GUIs extremely popular targets with both makers and users.....and that's something we 'need' to accommodate - as a community.
If, and WHEN Apple, for example, requests any/all these be removed then that WILL be that....the 'party' will be over.
In the meantime we wait in tedium for the next OS or OS Ver for the next spate of 'anti-port frustration' that will resurface as it has every other time in skinning's history...
Reply #23 Friday, August 8, 2003 2:20 AM
| #7 by Doomgaze - 8/7/2003 7:52:54 PM So according to your logic, I can make skins to the likeness of Treetog's and its ok? |
I'm still struggling to find the part in my post that says 'I think Mac rips are ok, and I accept them'.
Nope, 2 reads and still I can't find it.
Maybe you can point it out to me?
As well recognised as Treetog is, I don't think most of the computer using population would see one of his skins at first look at say 'That's a Treetog piece'.
Take an OSX screenshot, and show that instead, and the person will undoubtedly know what they're seeing.
[Message Edited]
Reply #24 Friday, August 8, 2003 4:00 AM
I'd say that they're accepted because the original source of the work is known, as opposed to ripping off some unkown artists work.
Hey, every one knows Hippy right? Now, every one knows you, so the original source is know, now lets rip your Mean Machine theme
But for serious, if you don't use original graphics then it isn't ripping (in theory).
The first GUI was made by microsoft/bil gates, so actually we are all 'ripping' his idea, ow, and the most wb skins have a startbar, and then a 'double' menu, looks like xp to me
Reply #25 Friday, August 8, 2003 4:38 AM
| #24 by Skinner Styl skinner - 8/8/2003 4:00:43 AM The first GUI was made by microsoft/bil gates |
Oh dear. You have no idea just how wrong you are!
But anyway, with regards to creating Mac lookalike skins, I agree wholeheartedly that they're rips. There's absolutely no artistic merit in taking a screenshot and cutting it up to make a skin. However, it seems that when it comes to rips of OS designs there's one rule for them and another for rips of skins. I'm not sure what that rule is exactly, or if it's in some big rulebook on a shelf somewhere, but I can say one thing for sure - you won't ever catch me making a lookalike skin.
Reply #26 Friday, August 8, 2003 4:53 AM
Reply #27 Friday, August 8, 2003 5:02 AM
Could be wrong but...
Reply #28 Friday, August 8, 2003 5:07 AM
It's somewhat apt to this thread that Apple were there way before Microsoft.
Reply #29 Friday, August 8, 2003 5:20 AM
Reply #30 Friday, August 8, 2003 7:27 AM
At any rate, the whole rip issue is moot for the big crowd out there. They just want Mickey Mouse skins and what not and truly do not care whether it are rips or not (for a variety of reasons).
Reply #31 Friday, August 8, 2003 7:53 AM
| Nuff already doomgaze! You jealous of my Mac or somethin? |
The only flaming I did kona, was of Hus.
The rest of the thread was thought out.
If you thought of my first post as a flame, you've never seen me on a full out attack then.
Ask DaWebMassa, I can be cruel.
And no, I hate macs, and I have a constant reminder. (still have a small burn scar from having a TiBook on my lap while troubleshooting it and it burning me.)
Bravo the rest of you.
Now to find a way to keep Hus and Kona out of threads so they can proceed intelligently
Reply #32 Friday, August 8, 2003 8:05 AM
| If you delv into the history and legalize of it, MAC Clones are only allowed by Apple starting back around 1995 or so. They gave permission for clones to be built. There is a difference even if many wish to attempt to ignore it... |
I do believe that apple did allow clones back then, but not anymore. They have since ended the ability to clone a mac.
And Macintosh does consider using their designs a rip, and they are the original author so no RIPs of Macintosh designs should be excepted. Apple copyrighted every piece of their os they possibly could. The icons, title bars, logos, even the Genie animation effect are all copyrighted, and legally can not be used without permission from them. And trust me, you will never get permission.
Reply #33 Friday, August 8, 2003 8:34 AM
So if they have everything copyrighted, a "considerable" likeness is considered a rip, no matter if the artist made it themselves or copy and pasted from a screenshot. And therefore is 'against the rules' here for lack of better term.
But yet, its OK because people already rip off OS designs for skinning and have been for quite some time now? I mean thats like saying racial discrimination is ok because its been around for hundreds of years to be honest.
Where do you draw the line?
When Apple comes wanting blood?
In my opinion (have I really stated it yet? no) why should someone who accidently makes a skin thats similar in appearance to a high profile skinner's idea get torn apart on the boards, yet something that a large company has copyrighted and requires permission/licensing to use be freely ripped? Whats the difference? The skin in question was part of a premium pack... aka.. it costs money. Mac OS's cost money.
[Message Edited]
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 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, August 7, 2003 10:44 PM
Hiya Baker
What do we do when there's such a love for Mac skins? I would like to adhere to the strict "you drew it or it doesn't get in" policy, and in fact we all do try, but with the volume and popularity of these skins it's impossible to determine who drew it themselves and who took it from a screenshot (sometimes).
Since OS ports are here, and we do play them down as much as we can, is it fair to exclude the thousands of people who dig this from our "community"? Isn't that an elitist and prudish stance to take? What's wrong with just ignoring them?
When threads like this aren't happening, I don't think about the multitude of OS skins. When threads like this show up, OS skins become a focal point and get blamed for everything from hiding the good artist's work to a karmic debt of hypocrisy. Really now... it's just another group of people with different tastes and it's not fan-art or Briteny wallpapers, it's OS ports we're talking about and they've been a big part of skinning since the beginning.
Except for the fact that it is a dead horse, I agree totally with your sentiment. I'm just not willing to say my lack of interest in OS ports makes me more pure than someone who likes them or makes them. It's a personal preference, not a virtue. I have a lot of respect for several artists who make ports.