His name is Gordon and I think he's got fleas

hmmm....mechanical bugs call for a mechanical bug catcher.......

had it for years....can't remember where I found it......it's a cool wall though....love my venus flytraps...

grasshopper very clever too......

...and Merry Christmas to you too Leo........

Diafragma, I understand your concerns but then that could be said about anything. A product perhaps. That would mean you would need permission from anyone if you were going to write something about a piece of art, a piece of software.........You name it.............  

Jafo or other admin...........Please see Diafragma's comment...........Please advise. I don't want to thread on anyone's toes   

messiah1, every picture or image you see posted on these forums belongs to someone. It could be a wallpaper, it could be a 'smiley' or a personal icon etc etc. So where do we go from there?

yes they do . its called intellectual property and it does belong to the Creator/artist as well as the rights to its distribution. this could be copyright infringement in the sense that the images can be easily extracted/downloaded, while unintentional it is still a form of distribution. we do moderate Screen shots to obscure enough of the walls used as not to easily extract them from the Screen shots. this may apply here as well.. hopefully an Admin will give a better heads up of the sites reg's on this matter.


The images we use and or upload here are of our own or have permission to do so.

Most of what is seen here on WC is not readily extracted for use as it is shown. a SS of a desktop can show a winamp skin in full. But it cant be easily extracted and reused as a winamp skin.. (It would take some work to get the images cut up and coded to a skin.) "Most" users here are not capable of this. while the images shown in this thread are easily copied to HD and used as they stand or resized with little effort.

other images/skins you see on WC are put up by Stardock/artists for viewing/use by the members/visitors thus we are given permission to view/use them personally, not redistribute them..

It's a grey area at times but it's typically safe to error on the side of caution..

I would say resize the images to a degree where they would be not easily used as a wallpaper or add a water mark stating for blog/news purposes across the middle. this would deter folks from grabbing it, without visiting the authors site...

Avatars uploaded here and most else where i believe are uploaded with the intent of the masses using them as such...so they would fall under GPU general public usage. or an implied Permission to use as avatars. Also those who use regular images and resize them as 50x50 avatars, aren't distributing the images in a usable state except as a avatar ( the image would deteriorate upon resizing up to a wallpaper size. so I would see no problem with them.

But like I said an admin would have a more concrete definition of WC standards. ..

it is a tough call, one I can offer my opinions on and "my" understandings of the rules. but the bosses will know the full answer...

I too am guilty of this and would like an affirmation of the sites rules on this.. ( did a bit of this in the LOLcatz thread) until Diafragma pointed it out, I hadent thought of it that way..

Thanks, Fuzzy. Makes sense and I'll leave it at that. Thank you   

Right, but that someone either uploaded it themselves or somebody had permission to do so. Smileys and avatars, unless otherwise noted are generally public use images. Wallpapers belong to their creator only and they decide where they get posted. That's the way I see it anyway. I personally woulnd't mind if someone liked a piece of mine and posted it at another community site as long as they noted that I created it...but that's me.

I see above that fuzzy un-fuzzyed this topic a bit. I just wanted to post my own thoughts/feelings in regards to your comment. Like Diafragma said, not trying to be a jerk, just stating my opinion I guess.

I'm just beginning my day today, and what a great round of discussion! Kudos to all I'm bookmarking this thread, I'm certain it will come up again. I'm glad you posted this Leo, I got a lot out of it and I hope it will continue.

Digital rights are a huge issue. Radiohead released their latest album "In Rainbows" and only asked we pay what we felt it was worth. A lot of folks downloaded it for free, that was in October.

Many artists were outraged by this act. A few applauded it. Thoughts?

Also, Leo, no guilt. You did everything right. I'm certain the individual you linked us to would enjoy the fact that I looked at all the other things posted on his site. It's a wonderful, linked community. I consider what you posted to be advertising for a really good artist. Same for Sydney, you never claimed ownership. If the artist would object, take it down or apply the appropriate footnotes.

Size? From what I understand, it matters

Anyway, Sizing, credits... all important. What we don't want to do, in my humble opinion, is be afraid to share important, creative works that inspire.

no sense in beating ur self up leo.. I too didn't think of the alternate aspects of it until it was pointed out..That and not always is it easy to guess what the rules would be until it is brought up.. such as it has been here... We live and learn..

To share is great and much appreciated. a small thumb offering up a direct link to the skin in question, or a screen shot you made using the skin, can showcase the skin as well as keep within the sites guidelines for distribution.

All that sounds a tad convoluted....the 'real drama' only applies if you download the artist's image from his source...and then reupload it elsewhere....here or image shack, etc...and thus actually physically 'redistribute' ...

Thanks Jafo for your explanation. I understand and concur. Thanks HG_E too, it's good to know that I have not been the only one to transgress.