(in reference to Moshi posted links to dashboard themes) I thought I would point out that the icons in all those screen shots are not made by the theme authors. They are the actual icons that are provided by the program developers and appear on the desktop as such. The themes that use famous characters can be considered fan art. However the authors would have to prove they created the works and have not copied and pasted them.

Static....as much as we manage to find them, we don't approve 'fan-art' unless its creation is either 100% their own or has permission, as with walls...

Jafo: a screenshot is not an icon, it is an image of icons amidst the rest of a desktop. Cars passing by a newscast are not cars, they are images of cars... incedental inclusion. The point of a screenshot is not to pass around icons. If your theory were correct, then people selling cars, comic books, computers, etc., could not display images of them, since the hood ornaments, logos, etc., are trademarked.

I'm sorry but this screenshot thing seems a lot more like an excuse than a precedent. Screenshots are images of a desktop, icons are 'works', pure and simple.

btw: i just had my "free lunch" of the day. unlike most of you believe such things exist. full MP3 album from a band´s website.

baker..an icon is and/or can be a simple collection of pixels....perhaps 16x16 of them...arranged in a 'copyrighted' way...and lookie here, so is its reproduction in a screenshot.

The 'image' is identical...100 and 1 %.
The example of the photo of the car is entirely off target...so far so that it is quite humorous....
A phot of a car is ONLY that. You gotta be weird to expect to be able to actually drive it, and puting petrol in it will knacker it totally...
The 'photograph' is NOT the 'car'...the example is flawed.

The issue of the 'icon' is a group of pixels being redistributed in original or modified form, and a screenshot is exactly that, ergo all screenshots should be illegal...

§tatic: did you draw that Spiderman?
did you use GPLed icons from the HiColor set by Tackat in several of your skins and then not put your derivative work under GPL as well as it is a condition when using those?
and don´t we all know that Apple does not allow the use of their logo?

all illegal, but i was honest when i said i don´t care about that

it´s just that some statements and reality contradict each other. sig looked pretty exhausted when he read "blatant copyright theft", so i gave him a few examples.

i would enjoy a discussion about interface design better

the FIFA one is here: https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371

You don't upload screenshots to distribute the contents of them for other people to use. If so, then by all means they need to go too. IF you say "well, if that is illegal, then that must be too..." it doesn't prove your point, it just drags something else into it. Do you want them dragged in?


I can display a photo of my office for purposes of "illustration or clarification" and the trademarked logos and such therein are incidental. If I take the same trademarked logos and make wallpapers out of them, I am acting illegally. A screenshot is not a derivative work, it is a documentation. A re-colored icon is a derivative work. I don't understand the confusion.

The purpose of a screenshot is to document the desktop.

The PURPOSE of a pack of copyrighted icons is to distribute copyrighted icons to people who may or may not own the software.

You can't take a screenshot and plug it right into ObjectDock can you? No, you have to make a derivative *work* out of it to do so. No one considers screenshots to be 'works'.

Unfortunately, the sole purpose of re-distributed icons is to distribute other people's works. If they don't have permission, it is wrong.

**

No point in argument, this would be really easy to decide. Let's pick, say, the top 100 most-used software icons and contact the software developers with links to sets here that contain them. Then they can exercise the their own rights as they and their lawyers comprehend them.

Oh, but if next week the 101st developer disagrees, then I guess we'll be right back here again. I didn't think it was kosher to 'assume' the creator of a work doesn't mind. As long as folks like Apple can decide their stuff does not belong here, then WC really can't speak for the developers.

You are correct about the GPL to be included I will update my linux themes that use the KDE likeness with the GPL... will you stop using your version of windows now that you have violated your EULA? By hacking the dll's to modify your computers appearance.

cool
i´m still not sure about that EULA thing. can you point me to the exact paragraph? i still have the unmodified originals backed up, so it could be a tricky question.

Jafo: you´re right. abusing Treetog in that statement was stupid.

note that this paragraph was only 5 rules in... not alot of reading to get there moshi

MODERATOR HAT ON:

ENOUGH GUYS. If you want to get into another mental masterbation excercise on copyright do it in another god damn post? Understand?

What an assanine argument. What's next? Should magazines say that Windows XP is crap because most wallpapers available for it suck? Object Desktop is a suite of desktop enhancements that includes virtual desktops, integrated ZIP, WindowBlinds, DesktopX, ObjectBar, Tab LaucnhPad, Object Edit, IconPackager, etc.

The review should cover the functionality of the software. Software that is in use by millions of people. If they want to argue that third party skins and themes and wallpapers and such violate copyright or whatever then they should do a seperate article on it.

But enough with the damn thread hijacking. If someone has a problem with the copyright protection of this site, then sue us. Email legal@stardock.com. The copyright protection of this site meets our standards. If you disagree, then get a lawyer or start your own thread where you and piss and moan about it to others who want to similarly piss or moan.

Do I make myself crystal clear?