Copyright Question

Saturday, November 22, 2003 by kona0197 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk

I recently uploaded 3 objectdock icons.

But really all i did was take the programs icon and converted it to a .png file.

Did i break some sort of copyright?

I have noticed other program icons in the OD listings so I was just wondering.

First Previous Page 2 of 4 Next Last
kona0197
Reply #21 Monday, November 24, 2003 1:35 AM
BTW I do have a pretty bike cake hole don't I?
kona0197
Reply #22 Monday, November 24, 2003 1:36 AM
BTW I do have a pretty bike cake hole don't I?


sorry - it should read big cake hole. I have bicycles on the mind.

bakerstreet
Reply #23 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:15 AM
I was sharp, Kona, I'm sorry.

Believe it or not all I was trying to do was to avoid posts like #17. I just assume that since you have been here so long you remember the unpleasantness that surrounds the 'copyright' issue. I don't like hurt feelings, believe it or not, and when I read #17 it seemed as if you were taking advantage of the local policy to prove your point about copyright as a whole.

We can all agree what WC's rules are, and that they aren't changing, so there really isn't any need in discussing copyright law on the whole, is there? I think if we can keep such discussion in the scope of Wincustomize policy, people can be informed of the rules and we can avoid unpleasantness on the rest.

Again, sorry for the cake hole thing.


[Message Edited]
Duff Lite
Reply #24 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:17 AM
Kona, you got it all wrong, I should've made myself clearer but that would mean a lengthy post (no one likes that).

I didn't "say" those people are rippers OR you can't use that "e" for a shortcut. All I'm saying is that.... Doh! nevermind. I'm not taking anyone's side. Just wondering why rules of copyright is inforced on works done by those for free while it's "okay" for them to use copyrighted materials themselves.


If that isn't clear enough, forget it. Join me in a pitcher of Duff. "Ummmmmm beer, guuuurrrrr."
bakerstreet
Reply #25 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:19 AM
Duff: I would direct such questions to the management. Then you'll be sure to have the official word and not a second-hand interpretation.
Tech-Cat
Reply #26 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:45 AM
I would have to agree that using a copyrighted icon from a company to create a link to it without permission from the company is no different from ripping an image from another artist. I a boot screen on this site with no images I drew myself. I have a classic version of the Windows XP logo that I drew myself. With this boot screen I have the satisfaction of saying I made it since I drew everything and did not "borrow" any images. I wonder if my use of a Windows XP logo drawn in a classic style I came up with for it is no different than ripping the Windows XP logo from a Microsoft's wallpaper. I find this issue troubling because on one hand I want to create skins that complement Windows XP which is why I drew an XP logo, but on the other hand I do not want to violate copyright.


Powered by SkinBrowser!
[Message Edited]
Jafo
Reply #27 Monday, November 24, 2003 7:07 AM

When a company, eg, Adobe creates a program, eg. Photoshop, it embeds within it or includes with it images designed for the OS GUI to 'extract' and use as graphic links to the executable/s, etc.

Then.....along comes a concept known as 'skinning' and 'themeing', and consequently 'other' means arise to enable the OS interface with that same Adobe Program, that Adobe was [naturally] unaware of, and had not catered for.

So....an enterprising 'skinner' then extracts and suitable facilitates the Adobe [included] images to function FOR that Photoshop, but from within the new interface method.

This can be argued as an extension of the existing inherent functionality of the Adobe interface FOR the Adobe product.

Perhaps the only 'real' negative is that it is done 'for' Adobe rather than it being done 'BY' Adobe.

If by being associated WITH the launching/function of Photoshop it is evident that its origins lie WITH Adobe and not the sole creation of the skinner then the argument of 'fair-use' could conceivably apply, and hence its general acceptance on every skinning site [that I'm aware of].

Related argument applies to OS logos, such as Win XP, etc......but due to the cross-platform reality of the Apple logo and interface [when applied to a PC machine] things do not necessarily sit so comfortably, and on occasion Apple has stated as much.

That's about it, really....

moshi
Reply #28 Monday, November 24, 2003 7:17 AM
the only thing that works with these "skinners" is the customize.org way. tell them how lame and boring they are. the only reason to upload such crap is to get some praise anyways, they obviously don´t get nuch of it in real life.
Jafo
Reply #29 Monday, November 24, 2003 7:27 AM
Ah....but as I recall it's generally the people who couldn't skin to save their lives who tend to put down one 'skinner' over another, just because of his/her choice of subject matter....and often Johnny-come-Latelys, to boot....
paxx
Reply #30 Monday, November 24, 2003 8:33 AM

In theory, icons are subject to copyright, or trademark actually.  So, if you take an application's icon and use it for your own application, it is obviously a big trademark infringement.  But reproducing a version of that icon to launch its original and intended application is perfectly legitimate. 

Imagine I write a book and give it a title.  Imagine even further that I actually officially trademark the title.  Would it be OK for another author to use the same title for his own book? No.  Would it be OK for an author to mention my book and refer to it by its title? Of course.  An icon is used as a shortcut to an application, so I see it that way.

IPlural
Reply #31 Monday, November 24, 2003 10:46 AM
#29, ouch
Duff Lite
Reply #32 Monday, November 24, 2003 1:30 PM
What if it wasn't an icon? A wallpaper perhaps? Or an image scanned? I'm not putting down anyone works, I use them so I have no complaint. Just want to be clear of what can and can't be used because of copyrighted issues.
bakerstreet
Reply #33 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:09 PM
Duff: if you want to be sensible, just don't upload anything you didn't make or get first hand permission to use. If people upload stuff they shouldn't here, that is between them, the owners, and WC. You have gotten your answer over and over, could you please stop asking? At this point it just looks like you are wanting to argue with the admins. The best way to do that would be via email.

This has been done publicly several times. Do a search here on the messageboard for 'copyright' and I am sure you will find it all.

To the rest, I would just say, again, that I see no way that 'uploading' could be considered 'personal use' of someone else's graphics. Let's not pretend that WC's take on this is universal and invite large cutting and pasting of copyright law, please?
kona0197
Reply #34 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:10 PM
And as far as Object Dock icons, I think paxx said it best.
bakerstreet
Reply #35 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:23 PM
What paxx said was:

"But reproducing a version of that icon to launch its original and intended application is perfectly legitimate"

Which does not involve taking said icon and uploading it to a place where people who may or may not own the software can get it, and where there is no CREDIT as to who REALLY made it.

There are COUNTLESS packs of icons here that are filled with commercially produced icons that have just been 'aqua-ed' over and uploaded. There is no indication that the uploader DIDN'T make them, nor is there any indication of who DID MAKE THEM. All the visitor sees is a nice pack of icons by the listed uploader.

Now, if you want to rip icons and use them on your own computer, fine, I agree with paxx. IF you upload them without permission, you are ripping. Period.

I suggested, more than once, shutting the hell up, but you guys must wanna talk about it. People don't seem to be able to resist rubbing the unchangeable status quo here in the face of people who disagree, so why not? >
Duff Lite
Reply #36 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:25 PM
Argue? The answers were vague (at least to me). My intentions of asking was to understand not to argue or anything of that nature. What's the point of having a messageboard if people can't come and post questions and expect answers from others? Yes, I could email the admins, but would I want to bother them? What if I wanted everyone else's opinion? Again, the answers were vague to me, so I asked again.

Something I learn in school... if you don't know, ask!!

I guess, I'll learn the hard way, break every copyright laws and get thrown in jail to know what I can and can't do.
kona0197
Reply #37 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:25 PM
Baker - fine I will drop it.
bakerstreet
Reply #38 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:28 PM
"The answers were vague "

Duff: as has been said, again and again, the RULES here are vague. They should have taught you when to stop asking in school as well. Sometimes there aren't any answers. If you want to learn about copyright law, I would suggest going to the website of your nation's copyright office, not to a public messageboard.
bakerstreet
Reply #39 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:30 PM
Kona: I dunno if you bothered to read it, but I apologized for being sharp with you. I just didn't want to start an unpleasant discussion that always ends "If you don't like it, go away." because people inevitably do, and later wonder why they came back.
Duff Lite
Reply #40 Monday, November 24, 2003 2:30 PM
Say that again, your post was very vague.

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!



web-wc01