I agree jafo, the world would be a 'sexier' place. I would love for it to be so.

When I reproduced the photograph for my client that I mentioned in my original post, I felt dirty, like I had just done something terribly wrong. But the client says no, it isn't wrong.

That's where I get confused. Hypothetically, if I sit with an original Van Gogh and painstakingly reproduce it on canvas, stroke by stroke until only an expert could tell the difference between the two, then I have committed an act of forgery. But if I do the same with a WindowBlinds skin, I haven't done anything wrong, provided the original WindowBlinds skin was done in a particular 'style' such as in the 'style' of the OS.

It's not that I don't believe what you are saying, but that it is just a hard to reconcile the two examples. The line between them seems very thin.

"What if skinners know up-front that it's OK for other people to make variations of their skins? What do they have to lose? So what if someone else does the same skin with a different color variation or different buttons, etc. Who is getting hurt? The original artist wold still have the copyright to his own work."

If it's a blatant reproduction of an original skin with just small differences like colors and/or buttons, IMO at least acknowledgement should be made to the original skinner, even if permission to use the prototype is not deemed strictly necessary.

For example, we've recently seen a multitude of skins copying Adni18 to the extent that when I first saw them even I, a newbie to this all, thought they were rips. Apparently it isn't considered a rip if the exact same bitmaps aren't used or some such thing. (As we know this author's first skins were actual rips but the ones currently on WC are not deemed so.) Still, they're blatant reproductions of an Adni style, format, whatever one wishes to call it. It's one thing when it's an OS that's being copied. We can all tell that a red or orange Luna skin, for example, is a variation of the XP theme that's part of the XP OS. But when an individual's work is copied as in this instance, this repro artist is praised for his skins as if it is all his creation and ingenuity when essentially he's a copier and a colorist. (I think Adni may have even been accused of copying this fellow's work, which is truly an insult IMO.) If it's any comfort, I suppose, the one trick pony act is wearing thin as the fellow's just been recoloring the same old template and people are noticing that.

Still...an attribution to the original mind behind the prototype at the very least is warranted in my opinion. I'm not talking about all skins, just those where the skinner clearly and knowingly reproduces a variation based on someone else's original skin. Especially when one can still ascertain the prototype and original author, although technically it may not be a "rip." I've seen people mention that they were "inspired" by another's work, even when there is no question of copying or ripping. Acknowledging the original author's work is a classy thing to do, even if copyright is not an issue.

So my question is, what do those who engage in such reproductions of original work have to lose by giving credit to the original skinner?

OK...some base rules of conduct.

There's no harm in 'copying' or using another's graphics or parts there-of....PROVIDED they are NOT uploaded under ANY pretext without the original skinner/artist's specific consent.

ALL other alternative actions are what is known as 'ripping', or 'theft'.

The example with the photograph 'copying' the original is just such an instance. It would have been much more appropriate to have gotten consent from the original photographer and simply used his.
Adds insult to injury were there to be monetary gains involved.


A clear distinct and appropriate example....
I recently 'ported' or created a Shell theme from a wall by 'Misery'/'Deaddreamer', sought his permission to upload it and received same.
It used cut-out 'bits' of his wall as separate images, etc...yes, I did quite a bit to 'modify' them but much was really cut and paste and clone, etc.
So far, so good.
Since then, I've done a WinAMP skin as well...and a Sysmetrix one....[and others]...but as yet have not received specific permission to upload these...so....they're rusting quietly on my HD.

This isn't 'good manners' or 'protocol'...it's da rulez...

very interesting thread.
It's about skins/styles legacity or about skins/styles honor?

I find some 'very exagerated' rips in other sites (pixel by pixel), exagerated style copies (specially by Adni and Windows/Aqua styles), and enhancing/complementing others creations/styles (AKA JamesT icons, icons/skins with glass effects, etc.).

Motion, it's YOUR CLIENT wich wish a copy, not you. And US (the creators) when are creating some new design.. are really CREATING A NEW DESIGN?

My experiencies are: before i create my first wallpaper i downloaded ALL aqua-based skins. Now i have a Mac with OSX installed, and i work 8 hours daily with a Mac OSX powered. I'm really bored with Aqua interface (bored, but not unsatisfied). When i beginned skinning i copied other skinners style (specially mormegil's jobs and Mac designs). With more (but not a lot) experience i tried to make more original designs, and these are the most gratifying for me (and for other users, viewing the comments).

So i deduce: if you don't make a Mac-like skin or a very original-nice-blue-gelified skin/wallpaper/icon, you never make a 'god' skin.

But you can always make your designs only for your PERSONAL SATISFACTION...

Actually, bakerstreet, it was a Comstock and the image in question has a higher possiblility of being spotted than most. It is one of the images featured on the Comstock homepage. I think most photographers and graphic artists in this area that have access to the internet would probably recognize it.

I warned the client against it. The client is determined that there will be no problem. They feel the photograph is commonplace enough that a coincidence can be claimed if any problems arise.

I have my doubts. And being the one who mass produced the 50,000 copies of the brochure, this could come back on me too.

The one saving grace is that the brochures are for a non-profit organization and I did not charge for the service. ( a charitable donation if you will). Since no one is making money I'm conviced most people would look the other way.

However, it is not a situation I like finding myself in. We offered the client the option of creating a new and original photograph that would capture the same mood as the Comstock photograph without copying it outright. The client was steadfast on the idea of using the Comstock photograph. Some people are extremely pig-headed.

As far as what is happening to Adni18....well, I could very easily recreate one of his skins from scratch. All the bitmaps would be created from the beginning by me. But it would look exactly like Adni18's. (Don't worry Nikos, I would never do that. ) Since the bitmaps would all be made by me and not just cut and pasted from the original Adni18 skin, would I then be allowed to upload it? If so, that just doesn't seem right. There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea. Apart from not being at all original, it's just wrong. To me, it's stealing.

It has been done all ready Carlitus, someone has used the name "adni_18", but thanks to T-Man he never get through.

Thank you Tim

Motion: why was saying "no" to the client not a viable option? Maybe you didn't have the final say but if your company had concerns regarding the legality or how this might reflect on the the company, the proper answer would have been "no" with the option of doing something else as you offered.

If the client didn't like it, well the client wasn't paying. And any future potential blowback from staging a repro of a well known pic wouldn't reflect as much on the client but rather your company since it knew what it was doing wasn't entirely kosher. And since it was a freebie "that's what the customer wanted" holds less sway over what the company chooses to do, seems to me.

Ah, yes, of course then that's understandable and certainly an unpleasant situation to find oneself in. Which is of course why they insisted.

motion - I remember a case very similar to yours where an agency made a copy of a famous photographer's shot to use in an ad. I can't remember all the details (was about 20 years ago) but I do remember the outcome. The agency was sued by the photographer, lost the case, was forced to pay some huge settlement and pull the ad. I had a client ask me to 'knock-off' an ad once and he was insisting that no one would care. I refused and made something that was different enough it wouldn't be immediately identified with the original though it did look 'derived' from it. That's unfortunately very common in commercial art.

But a direct copy of a copyrighted photo which mimicks the layout, lighting and composition enough that it can be identified as a copy will definitely get you in trouble if it's noticed. Your original feelings were right, it's not only unethical it's also illegal.

hey - it's the artist formerly known as koasati~~~

chef - also, pete fountain didn't claim he'd written it. that's the biggie if you look on cds where some band is covering somebody else's tunes, it will always say who it was written by.

same as performing music live, as a cover band in a bar. you don't pay royalties to anybody, but you also don't claim you wrote it yourself. metallica got their start playing covers of old queen and diamond head tunes in big-time bars like the whiskey in la remember though, bands who stay 'cover bands' never make it anywhere.

just as a basic artistic tenet, copying = lame.

motion:: duck and cover man..

Lecrayon:

"...would I have to ask each photographer the permission to make the collage?"

yes, or you are breaking the law.

The law does not care if you make money off what you steal, it just says not to steal. If I steal a painting just to look at it, is it stealing? If I take the only commodity an artist has, and then give it away en masse, am I being fair to the artist? The magazine you scanned it from paid for the right to display that image, did you?

Call it terrorism if you like, but cutting and pasting other people's work does nothing to foster creativity, it just borrows other people's creativity. Barring that act doesn't touch any freedom you have. You still have the freedom to make your collage, but you don't have the right to distribute it.

If you do distribute frankenstein collages of other people's work, then you take away the right of the original artists to say who may create derivative works. Taking someone's rights away is far more akin to terrorism. The rights you are trying to protect don't exist, and have never existed, there's nothing to sway.