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....

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....

#29, ouch

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?

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? >

Baker - fine I will drop it.

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.

No problems or worries Baker. I hear you just fine. As far as I am concerned my original question was answered a long time ago.

Duff on the other hand, needs to get a clue.

no thanks I prefer budweiser....

Duff: don't get all worked out on Bakerstreet's account.
Bakerstreet is Bakerstreet, a one of a kind kinda guy.

We love him, but he sure appreciates a good argument when he sees one.

Finally, as an admin, I can tell you the basic rule, although there can be exceptions: if you didn't make it, don't upload it. 

Essentially, post #27 covered the stance generally taken by skinning and skinning related sites.

Call it a 'softening' of the strict copyright law which would have you specifically seek and obtain specific and particular prior permission for any and every pixel combination/arrangement which was not absolutely 100% of your own doing.

If there was any association or similarity or inspiration from another's work then it was/is not 100% and MUST be accompanied by written, verifyable consent.

The 'absolute' is untenable, as, for example, it could then be argued that exactly ONE glassy buttonned work would be allowed but ALL others were derivations and must be rejected.

The adherence to any law of any sort cannot be a blanket absolute, as their adoption must be practical and workable in conflicting circumstances NOT covered by their 'inclusions'/sphere of reference.

Consequently, as stated above, when someone submits an eyeball icon for Photoshop [albeit glassy] it is assumed it has been derived from the original included graphics FOR that proggy, unless stated otherwise.

What is desirable is that any work submitted, be it a Wall, OR an icon be sufficiently documented to declare its ancestry......in other words if it's fan-art say so and link to the source material.  If it's an icon of obscure heritage being 'utilised' to create a LiteSTEP shortcut again make a note and link to its source.

This sort of additional documentation 'may' be a pain in the ass for people but it makes the submission's heritage 'transparent' and means that if and when the originator of a work takes umbrage with its re-use the ownership and its rights are clear and evident....and can be addressed.

The argument of pedantry that usually surfaced at Devart over this sort of issue usually resulted in some prat claiming God created EVERYTHING and all things are stolen from him......

Reality demands a sensible approach to what is NOT a simple argument.

Every day the admins at Wincusto have to deal with all the permutations/interpretations/opinions of what constitutes 'copyright' and what is 'fair use' and every single person will have his opinion which of course is the only correct one.

However, what ultimately determines what does or does not successfully make it onto this site is a combination of what the administration determines is salient along with what the resultant members are happy with submitting.

On a site with no policing of submissions you will get incontrovertable issues [measured by 'our' community's values], whereas on a site such as here, Wincustomize.com, the worst you will get [hopefully] is something which does not always gel or sit well with one's black-and-white concept of absolutes, but is a working interpretation of what is generally wanted and accepted by our specific community as a whole.

So.....read my earlier post....and this one.....and if there are any further examples needing clarification, - ask any of the admins for their opinion/interpretation....

If this ideology is abhorrent to your personal values then I'm sure there is a still-born community out there for you somewhere which has already expired under its own reluctance to bend before the winds of reality...

Baker....but that's really the point....like if you join a Ford car club but don't like Fords, preferring GM.....makes more sense to find a GM club, doesn't it?....