You're OK. That is what the screenshots section of the library is for. We all modify skins "for our own use", no problem there. If you want to post the revsion you definitely need the authors permission, but it sounds like you already know that.

P.S. What you are doing is the best way to learn how to skin...

Just make sure that walls in particular are sufficiently 'obscured' to prevent their 'easy' re-use as walls from your screenshot.....in other words, partly obscure the wall...[you should be, anyway, as it's a 'screenshot' of a desktop, not a blank wall space...

Depends on who you work with. Some might want you to let them upload it, but I think many people wouldn't mind you uploading it with the proper credit, both in the comment and in the readme.txt in the files themselves. I've done both.

bakerstreet, don't kill me for saying this, but thats a little vague. I have literally 100's of other peoples skins that I could upload that I have updated for myself. All I have to do is give proper credit. The best thing to do is get author permission. I just think it's respect for the artist. This site would start getting flooded with updates.

p.s. the only addendum to that is when the derivative work is done for a journalistic or scholarly study, and then the amount of work you can reference is limited in scope. Skins fall under neither category, anyway.

~ Thanks for all the input everyone, but I think you're misinterpreting the question. I wasn't planning on posting an updated or modified version of an original them. I was talking about an original theme which uses some elements from other themes/artists, whether modified or in their original form.

bakerstreet, yes, that is all true. I was just making a small point incase Raistlin (who might be new) might get the wrong idea. To your point Raistlin, yes you can use other elements as long as there not the original graphics. For example. if I create a start button that looks like a unicorn, can other people use it? No, they have to get my permission. Does that mean no one can use another unicorn? Sure they can as long as it doesn't look like mine. Be original. If you could clarify a little more on the term(using some elements) that might get your question a little better response. just trying to help!!!

~ Some 'elements' I used are: menu headers/middles/endcaps; amp buttons; VWM buttons; a graphic from the start menu of a WB them; icons, obviously. Some of these things are as the original artist made them...some I have modified. I'm working on my own original objects but, in the meantime, I wanted a complete and usable theme. I have the utmost respect for the original artists and have no intention of claiming their art as my own. I have already sent emails off requesting permission to use/alter/modify their skins/themes/icons and post my work once done. I even sent screenshots. I have yet to receive any response from them. I only hope that, me being new to all this, I go about it all the right way and not piss anyone off. I just wish the artists would respond to my emails so I wouldn't have the Fiery Pits of Hell looming in the foreground.

p.s. I'm not accusing anyone of differing with me, either, just simplifying my point.

grayhaze: no, i would have to disagree. The implication of a desktop screenshot has never been "I made this." There are countless websites, in and outside of our community, wherein people post screenshots of their current desktops, and none in my experience have ever required or implied that it was the uploader's work. In customization there are the artists and the users, and the screenshot section has always been the place for users to post their desktop customization. Screenshots are even a tool against ripping, the more exposure, the more commonly known who the artist is. Trying to say that a "My_Desktop" image is stealing is akin to an automotive company suing you for posting an image of yourself standing next to your car, with the excuse that it would sreve as a guide for people to steal the design.

I believe as much as anyone in the seriousness of this, but imho to limit people from sharing screenshots is an extreme that would do more harm than good.

I can think of nothing more thankless than trying to call end-users rippers for posting screenshots of their desktops, when most of the time they are lauding our work by doing so. You have to draw a line, and the people who enjoy our work is a step too far. If their screenshots are ripped by those too infantile to make their own skins, then take it up with the ripper. There are *no* preventative measures that can be taken to stop someone from ripping beyond letting people know whose work is whose, and screenshots are the greatest tool to do that.

~ I'm so confused ~

I posted another long reply to your comments bakerstreet, but typically it got lost in transmission.

So here it is in shorthand.

1) Screenshots of original skins ARE in breach of copyright, but are still generally acceptable so long as credit given.

2) Screenshots of modified skins ARE in breach of copyright, and should only be posted if given permission by the original artist.

3) Derivative works include any image which contains the exact graphical information from an image created by another artist. This therefore includes screenshots.

4) Using your 'photo of a car' analogy: A screenshot of a skin is comparable to the blueprints of the main components of a car. A photo of a computer screen displaying a skin is comparable to a photo of a car.

I just want to make sure that you're aware of the facts, rather than simple opinion. Copyright law isn't something to be interpreted as you would a vague statement. It doesn't vary depending on good intent, but is a fixed law which very specifically states what is and is not acceptable.

It's good that Raistlin has asked others before acting, as this shows that the intent to rip is not there. However, it's our duty to him as one of the few with the good sense and manners to ask the question, to provide him with the facts.

You could also say, 'Which part of copyright law deals specifically with paintings of yellow flowers?'. I'm not saying copyright law covers each and every specific instance by name, but rather the broad medium of digital graphics as a subset of art.

If anyone really wants to get into the semantics of copyright law again, I'd be happy to post some links. I can't guarantee you'll understand the terminology, but it's all out there for you to read.

I can understand how people feel unfairly restricted by these laws, and how people will tend to argue that they're open to interpretation, but the fact remains that the law exists to protect people like us. In a perfect world we'd be free to do whatever we wanted with whatever materials we find, but until we reach that point of freedom it's better to be safe and err on the side of caution.

No matter how much you think a law is 'open to interpretation', a good lawyer will always prove you wrong.