Selling Themes With Photos You Didn't Take? Bad Theme Maker! Bad! [Archive]

Jason Dunn

06-14-2003, 10:30 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=198' target='_blank'>http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/p...products_id=198</a> </div>I saw <a href="http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=198">this package for sale at Pocket Themes</a>, and I felt the urge to rant a little. This practice has been going on now since themes first came out, but this is one of the more brazen examples of it. Now I could be wrong here, but I'm going go out on a limb and guess that Peter Jackson didn't give permission to <a href="http://www.prismesoft.com/">Prismesoft</a> to sell these themes. Prismesoft seems to be particularly aggressive in selling the work of others - their site has several theme packs for sale, and I see no copyright information or permission from photographers. Does Prismesoft really think that cropping a photo and making a theme from constitutes a work that they can sell? Contrast that with the unique work being <a href="http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=195">offered by Ray Elder</a>. I really like seeing artists creating themes and selling them - they created the work, and they should benefit from it. I personally don't have a problem with people creating themes from commercial works and giving them away - just like McDeb did with <a href="http://www.mcdeb.com/theme-packs.html">the Nemo pack</a>. I'm sure the lawyers from the movie studio would disagree with me, but the marketing man in me says that someone doing the work to extend your brand, then give it away for free, is a good thing. So if you're making themes based on the creative work of others, and selling those themes, go get a real job. :roll: If you don't have the creative instincts to create your own work, go find a royalty-free photo site, pay for a license, and create your themes the legal way. UPDATE: It turns out that not all of the themes that Prismesoft sells are made from copyright images. Several of the packs are made with royalty-free images, which is great - that's exactly the kind of thing I like to see! I apologize to Prismesoft for unfairly judging all their themes as being based on stolen images - but there's still that Lord of The Rings pack being sold... :wink:

Jason Dunn

06-14-2003, 10:44 PM

And, for what it's worth, I put my money where my mouth is and I purchased the "flares" theme pack I mentioned - the themes look AWESOME. :mrgreen:

yawanag

06-14-2003, 10:49 PM

That's tellin' 'em, Jason. I'll add my AMEN.

Glisson

06-14-2003, 11:13 PM

So sayeth the Sheppard...

Jason Dunn

06-14-2003, 11:17 PM

So sayeth the Sheppard...

What's that supposed to mean? :? I'm not sure if you're insulting me or if you agree with me. :lol:

David Johnston

06-14-2003, 11:24 PM

Happens all the time - there were loads of unhappy people years back when companies gathered up lots of DooM WADs from BBS's (remember those?) and the internet, and just published them on CD as 'new and original' for over $30 a pop - no credit given to the original authors. It's even happened to me with similar CDs with Half-Life maps and tools. It's not quite the same thing, but the principle is the same.

People try to make money off others when they can - this is just another example. It's a huge shame. Unfortunately there's not much that can be done...

Jason Dunn

06-14-2003, 11:26 PM

People try to make money off others when they can - this is just another example. It's a huge shame. Unfortunately there's not much that can be done...

True, but one thing that can be done is just what I did - educate people to ask whether or not what they're buying is stolen or legitimately created, and to support the original artists who have something to sell.

Jonathon Watkins

06-14-2003, 11:28 PM

Agreed. I've just been out hunting for good themes today and I got quite a few of McDeb's themes.

If anyone is selling themes, then the original artist/photographer should get thier cut. It's only fair and is the right thing to do.

wiley

06-14-2003, 11:33 PM

Not to mention the fact that all of the traffic generated from this post appears to have slowed Pocketthemes' servers to a crawl... I clicked the link to the offending theme about 15 minutes ago... still waiting :lol:

T-Will

06-14-2003, 11:40 PM

Same connection prob here too...

quidproquo

06-14-2003, 11:44 PM

I agree...... theme makers should either use royalty free images, make their own images or at least get permission.

I saw a theme maker on Handango that had all sorts of movie themes as well as a bunch of Disney characters, (Mickey, Goofy, etc.) and he was also using a bunch of Homer Simpson themes.

They looked great but he was selling them at $3.99 for a 4 pack and selling the heck out of them! I am sure he didn't get Disney's permission to scarf up those images.

I make themes and sell a few on Handango....and I give away some....but all the stuff I do is self made. No stealing images.

Ok....that's enough......

klinux

06-14-2003, 11:45 PM

Jason gets the credit for the creation of the term - "The PPCT Effect" (an homage to the /. effect). :)

McDeb

06-15-2003, 12:33 AM

Well, although I am a fan of PocketThemes.com, I am glad to see this post.

I've created several hundred themes and skins and I could NEVER imagine selling the work of someone else without permission from the artist. I've spent a good deal of cash on royalty-free images, the majority of which I use in free themes. And I enjoy spending time creating my own designs.

I have had my own work stolen from my site and sold elsewhere. :twisted: I was furious, but unfortunately that's the cost of doing business on the web. Almost everything on my site is free, but I do sell a few theme packs to help pay the bills. But, I have royalty-free licenses for any work that is not my own.

The free Finding Nemo theme pack that Jason mentioned was actually created with royalty-free images. Prior to the release of the movie, Pixar made those images available with a royalty-free license.

I must admit, I did got a letter from the attorney representing the interests of Tom Wilson (creator of the Ziggy cartoon). I had a few free Ziggy themes up at the time. I just figured that any publicity for Ziggy is good publicity. I even left the Tom Wilson signature on the images. And, since the themes were free, I saw no harm. The lawyers did not see it that way, so I took them down. Even though they were free, it was technically a copyright violation.

It does not look like the author of the theme pack in question here was trying to pass off the images as his/her own work, but rather, he/she was looking to make a buck off of compiling a bunch of movie themes. Still NOT good.

This is precisely the reason that I have not allowed the public uploading of themes or wallpapers to my site and I only feature my own work. It is practically impossible to police where all of the images are coming from.

Jason Dunn

06-15-2003, 12:48 AM

The free Finding Nemo theme pack that Jason mentioned was actually created with royalty-free images. Prior to the release of the movie, Pixar made those images available with a royalty-free license.

Wow - that's very cool! Pixar is a SMART company! :way to go:

I must admit, I did got a letter from the attorney representing the interests of Tom Wilson (creator of the Ziggy cartoon)...

Yeah, lawyers tend to ruin everything good in life. :roll: It's VERY short-sighted of them to not grasp what you're doing - which is keeping the character of Ziggy alive and well by letting more people see it. Old media just doesn't grasp new media most of the time...

yunez

06-15-2003, 01:20 AM

Mcdeb, do you take your own pics or are they stock pics? because they are great

Stone

06-15-2003, 01:26 AM

Yeah, <rant>I'm actually glad to see this post as well. It really ticks me off that Handango and PocketGear can get away with having anyone sell an image they have made into themes, most of which can be downloaded for free from us</rant> :!:

So, here is our dilemna, we have (until now) only allowed people to sell themes that were their original creations, however, a recent search on Handango (http://www.handango.com/PlatformSoftwareSection.jsp?siteId=1&jid=XE3XAEBBDA3E3C3559D167CE1ACX3AAF&platformId=2&special=&bySection=1&sectionId=4725&catalog=30&title=Themes) showed 4,477 themes for sale :!:

I know of several people that have emailed both of the above sites complaining about this and not one of them even received any type of response :!:

So, what are we to do? Let the competition get away with selling copyrighted works or, fight fire with fire :?:

Now, with that said, Jason, though I always appreciate you mentioning our site, I believe picking us out of the crowd this time was unfair seeing as how we are 1 vs 4,477 :?: :devilboy:

McDeb

06-15-2003, 01:34 AM

Mcdeb, do you take your own pics or are they stock pics? because they are great

I wish I had decent photography skills. But no. I buy many of them from istock photo (http://www.istockphoto.com) and Getty Images (http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/home/home.asp). I've also had a few great photographers donate their work.

PeterLake

06-15-2003, 01:47 AM

Yeah, lawyers tend to ruin everything good in life. :roll: It's VERY short-sighted of them to not grasp what you're doing - which is keeping the character of Ziggy alive and well by letting more people see it. Old media just doesn't grasp new media most of the time...

Don't be angry at the lawyers for policing "Ziggy". It is up to the owner of Ziggy to decide what is best for him and his property. If his lawyers are going beyond his instructions, then he should rein them in. However, the safer assumption is that he selected these lawyers because he approves of their decisions.

I also didn't see anything in McDeb's post which implied that the lawyers were rude and, in fact, she agreed it was a technical violation.

Just remember that behind every copyright lawyer is an artist or author who has directed that lawyer to take some action.

Finally, while YOU may have drawn the line for what you consider to be a violation at one spot, you cannot know why Mr. Wilson drew the line where he has.

P.S. (post-edit) I forgot to tell McDeb that I LOVE her themes. I have a few myself!

CESkins

06-15-2003, 02:51 AM

...their site has several theme packs for sale, and I see no copyright information or permission from photographers. Does Prismesoft really think that cropping a photo and making a theme from constitutes a work that they can sell?...
Thenes appear to be all the rave these days but very few individuals possess the skill to create a functional theme...i.e. one that not only has aesthetic value but allows for easily readable text. McDeb and Juni are two of the best that come immediately to my mind. Given that a theme is basically just wallpaper for the PocPC Today screen, the hardest work is actually to create high quality artwork or photographs that can be used as such. To simply take someone's artwork or photograph, crop it, and sell it as a theme is morally and legally objectionable. Simple photoshop manipulation of the artwork does not render it into something new and unique (at least not based on what I have seen on theme sites). Thus, it is a copyright violation plain and simple. If you are giving away certain themes as McDeb does and the original artwork creator has no problems with it, there are no problems.

darrylb

06-15-2003, 03:45 AM

Great rant Jason. I'll also add my AMEN to the list.... :)

R K

06-15-2003, 04:07 AM

So, what are we to do? Let the competition get away with selling copyrighted works or, fight fire with fire :?:

I think you should continue to do what you thought was morally correct and have faith that good will work itself out in the end. Besides, the "I'm doing it because everyone else is dong it," mentality is what degenerates a good society into a pile of stink.

Stone

06-15-2003, 04:34 AM

Thanks for the support R K :)

Pony99CA

06-15-2003, 05:22 AM

Thanks for the support R K :)
And don't forget to rat the competition out to the copyright police. With the DMCA around, that should be easier than ever. :-D

Steve

Jason Dunn

06-15-2003, 05:36 AM

So, what are we to do? Let the competition get away with selling copyrighted works or, fight fire with fire...Now, with that said, Jason, though I always appreciate you mentioning our site, I believe picking us out of the crowd this time was unfair seeing as how we are 1 vs 4,477 :?: :devilboy:

Regarding Handango, yeah, they're pretty bad for not policing content. That said, I bet they have 40,000 pieces of software in their database, so you can't blame them for not doing the research to become copyright police.

I knew this post would draw you out. :wink: I tried emailing you twice to tell you it was nothing personal, but my email bounced both times (even when I tried the stone1@ one). It's not anything against your site - I just happened to see it there. :wink:

Stone

06-15-2003, 06:21 AM

Jason, I have been receiving emails from everyone so I'm not sure what happened. (I'll email you and see if I get a return from you).

Anyway, I can appreciate the post, as I mentioned before. Still, it really can't be that hard for Handango to check content on their themes. We check every single theme that is uploaded to our site. So, if we can check some 53,000 themes, what's so hard about 4,000+ ? (No need to answer, it's just my rant :wink: )

angeleyes

06-15-2003, 02:50 PM

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of this thread!

I was one of the people that Stone mentioned complained to Handango about the proliferation of what are quite obviously copyrighted images used for theme packs.

I even had to email them twice, because when I hadn't received a reply to my first email (which they denied ever having received - despite the fact that I had received their auto-generated response!) I sent them another copy of my email and I still never received the courtesy of a reply!

So I have done what every customer should do in the face of poor service and indifference; and that is vote with your wallet! I no longer frequent the site and certainly haven't purchased any software from them since!

Besides, I just got so sick of trying to find the new software in among the excessive number of rubbish themes featuring copyright images from authors out to make a quick buck of the back of someone else’s effort!

I chose to sell my commercial theme packs through pocketthemes.com because of the way Stone does business, for his integrity and honesty and his vision of what he is doing with the site. Whilst I am personally disappointed that Primesofts Lord of the Rings theme packs and been put up for sale on the site, having spoken to Stone numerous times about the issue over at Handango, I do understand his frustration and motives for his actions.

However, if you compare the number of sales that theme packs receive over at McDeb.com and PockeThemes.com against the sales for the rubbish over at Handango, it does show that customers really do rate and value the quality and originality that is available from their 2 sites :)

I have been making commercial theme packs now for the past 6 months and you wouldn't believe how long it takes me to put each theme pack together!

I blend every colour used to match each individual image; I ensure that the transparency is perfect on the drop-down menu and that every theme allows the Today Screen Text to be read over the theme. A theme is for life - not just for Christmas! :lol:

Every customer receives free complimentary themes to thank them for their custom and each customer receives a personal email offering full back-up support and the option to have any aspect of the themepack they have purchased amended to their liking at no cost! The fact that not 1 of my hundreds of customers have asked for their theme to be amended, so far, suggests to me that I got it right! :wink: I doubt whether that level is offered by the "quick buck merchants"

And yes! Everyone of my commercial theme packs feature royalty free images which I have registered to use 8)

Hopefully CESkins will add Angelic Themes to their list of quality theme authors :wink: You can view my current commercial theme packs HERE (http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/default.php?manufacturers_id=84)

I know Jason says he "just saw Primesofts Theme Pack there", but this is the 1 and only time that this type of theme Pack has been offered for sale at PocketThemes.com and considering the vast numbers of copyrighted themes for sale over at Handango I do think it is more than a little unfair to single PocketThemes.com out as the bad guys :cry:

I do hope Stone fights the urge to "Fight Fire with Fire" but we can all help by supporting the owners of web stores that offer unique, original theme packs for sale like PocketThemes.com (http://www.pocketthemes.com/store/) and McDeb
(http://www.mcdeb.com/mcgear/)and resign the likes of Handango to what they deserve - nothing!

Peace and Love :D

davidspalding

06-15-2003, 03:43 PM

Yeah, <rant>I'm actually glad to see this post as well. It really ticks me off that Handango and PocketGear can get away with having anyone sell an image they have made into themes, most of which can be downloaded for free from us</rant> :!:

... So, what are we to do? Let the competition get away with selling copyrighted works or, fight fire with fire :?: ...

I think that this is a common misconception, that someone is "getting away with illegal activity." Take a look at all those RIAA-targeted file sharers. Some of them are now getting sued. They must've thought they were "getting away" with something. It's a delusion.

My suggestion is to consult a lawyer, and evaluate the risk of "fighting fire with fire," that is, offering themes with suspected copyright violations. As an accessory to the violation (check with a lawyer, I'm just guessing here), your site may also be subject to legal action. If you take the high ground, and do the right thing, you're not "letting the competition get way with selling copyrighted works...." You're protecting your business and selling, potentially, higher quality software. You might even use that as marketing fodder. Could even use it as leverage to actually get license from copyright holders like Disney (Nemo), Paramount (Star Trek), et al.

IMHO Primesoft's themes are crap. Out of all of those LOTR themes, only a very few seemed to be designed to contrast with the Today text. Most of their other themes don't even show that much effort. Any script kiddie with a thumb in his/her mouth can record a PHotoshop action to make a today background. Choosing, editing and tweaking an image to be a "background" requires some skill, talent, and experience.

CESkins

06-15-2003, 05:25 PM

Hopefully CESkins will add Angelic Themes to their list of quality theme authors :wink:
I knew that some individual theme authors would not be on the short list but no offense was meant to those creating "functional" themes like yourself ;) I like the "Electricity Theme Pack" you put together. I did notice that you added forked lightning to what appears to be a nebula in one of the Today screens. :D That's quite an interstellar lightning show. :D
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nef/angeleyes1.gif
And yes! Everyone of my commercial theme packs feature royalty free images which I have registered to use
There is a right way and a wrong way to create commercial themes...glad to see based on posts here that both you and McDeb are doing things the right way (legally and morally). :)

prismejon

06-15-2003, 08:40 PM

Would the defendant please step up...

I’ll try not to get into the “everybody else does it” argument, although it’s not an excuse it is reality. But please give me a chance to speak out my opinion before you decapitate me.

Concerning the LOTR themes there is no excuse when it comes to the pictures I’ve used as a basis. My argument is that a license to use those pictures would raise the price of the themes to 40 bucks instead of 4. But I highly doubt that such a license would be granted in the first place. Taking the pictures myself would be a little hard as I don’t live in New Zealand and the recordings already are done. With a price of $40 the only sane alternative for the LOTR fans would be to create the themes themselves. Making 100 quality themes takes a great deal of time. This way people who prefer to use their time on other things at least have the choice.

Although the LOTR basis pictures are unlicensed, the pictures I use for most of my other theme packs (i.e. “A Taste of the Tropics”) are either free-to-use images or royalty-free bought from Corbis or GettyImages. To generalize the source of all my theme packs is thereby unfair. You could have e-mailed me first Jason.

What I can’t understand is why you are calling me the aggressive one? Is it because I sell such a big theme pack with 100 themes for only $3.99? Making 100 themes takes me several days, so I don’t see this as being an unfair price. The profit is minimal, if existing, almost everything goes to pay Corbis, GettyImages and my Internet connection. If anyone is aggressive towards earning on the works of others, it’s people (http://www.handago.com/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?catalog=30&jid=1D2C46723D184BDB1D9E4B8C11C18BA4&productId=51008&sectionId=4725&productType=2&platformId=2) who sell 4-themes for $3 (dough! I tried not to bring it up...). Then you at least make a profit.

As for you who accuse me of just cropping an image and calling it a theme; I take great pride in making my themes usable. There’s no point of having a theme you can’t use! I retouch and draw where it is needed to make the picture usable on both the today screen and start menu. The menu colours etc. are also carefully selected to make the product a harmonic theme, not just a background picture. Concerning the LOTR theme pack, I can agree that some themes appear more graphical, but that is a choice I made due to the nature of the movie. On the other hand, saying most of the themes are rubbish is ridiculous when this only applies to a minority of them. I don’t mind if you don’t like my themes, but I find it offending when you accuse me of not putting any work into them. I haven’t gotten a single complaint from people who have bought and actually used the themes; only positive feedback. To criticize my work based on looking at small, blurry, 256 colours thumbnails is plain ignorant. Although it may be a marketing fault by me…

I don’t like to whine, but just as Stone (from pocketthemes.com) I feel it’s a little unfair to pick me out as the worst of the bad guys here.

And Jason, besides being a full time student I’ve already got a job :wink:

Jason Dunn

06-15-2003, 09:29 PM

Still, it really can't be that hard for Handango to check content on their themes. We check every single theme that is uploaded to our site. So, if we can check some 53,000 themes, what's so hard about 4,000+ ? (No need to answer, it's just my rant :wink: )

Well, since you brought it up, how do you check themes? Let's say I submit a new theme and I want to sell it. How do you check if I'm using my own images or not? Do you ask for the person to upload the source photo they took the image from? How would I proove to you that what I'm uploading for sale is legitimate? I personally think it's a very hard thing to police...

The point of my post was not about Pocket Themes or Handango selling this stuff - it was aimed at the people making it and selling works they don't have the right to.

Jason Dunn

06-15-2003, 09:36 PM

I know Jason says he "just saw Primesofts Theme Pack there", but this is the 1 and only time that this type of theme Pack has been offered for sale at PocketThemes.com and considering the vast numbers of copyrighted themes for sale over at Handango I do think it is more than a little unfair to single PocketThemes.com out as the bad guys :cry:

I in no way singled out PocketThemes.com as being the "bad guys" - please re-read my message. I singled out the company/person who was selling the themes, but I didn't say a word about PocketThemes.com being in the wrong for selling the package. If I gave the impression that I was criticising PocketThemes.com for selling themes like that, I apologize - that wasn't my intention. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the people creating themes using stolen images. PocketThemes.com giving people like this a conduit to sell their stolen work is a whole different issue, and that's not a road I want to go down in this thread.

I respect Stone and the work he's done with PocketThemes.com a great deal, and my post was NOT about his involvement in this.

Stone

06-15-2003, 09:42 PM

No, it's absolutely impossible for us to know where the images come from. What we do check for is to be sure there are no controversial type of themes such as full nudity, etc. We have a pretty good Rules section for people to check. If a theme doesn't meet the rules for any reason, we always email the theme author with an explanation. Typically, it is for nudity, etc. After the image is cleaned up (if possible) and then re-submitted, again, it may or may not be approved. Long story short here, we reject about 1 out of 25 themes or so these days.

We have had a few people request that we remove some themes. We will always research the themes to be sure where the images came from by asking the theme author where they got the picture from. 9 times out of 10, the person doing the complaining about copyrights, etc., isn't even aware that their images are on other sites! A simple Google search of an image name will find the image on several sites!

Anyway, that is what I meant by "checking every theme."

Jason Dunn

06-15-2003, 09:58 PM

Oh. Hello. 8O It takes tremendous courage to post in this thread after I bashed the hell out of you, so I'll give you props for having the guts to speak up. :way to go:

Concerning the LOTR themes there is no excuse when it comes to the pictures I’ve used as a basis.

It's nice to hear you say that! Since there's no excuse, don't sell them - give them away for free. That's the only right thing to do in this situation. I know that Peter Jackson (or the Tolkien estate) would charge silly licensing fees and make it impossible for you to sell them - which is why they need to be free. There's no other solution, and that's what incensed me so much - that you KNEW you shouldn't be selling them. You're saying it takes forever to make 100 themes? I don't doubt that - but it doesn't make it right to sell them. If you don't have the spare time to create 100 themes and give them away for free, create 10. Or five. The point is, you can't take someone elses work and sell it as your own.

...the pictures I use for most of my other theme packs (i.e. “A Taste of the Tropics”) are either free-to-use images or royalty-free bought from Corbis or GettyImages. To generalize the source of all my theme packs is thereby unfair. You could have e-mailed me first Jason.

I apologize for generalizing, and I'll edit my original post - I was clearly in the wrong. But can I make a suggestion? Have a footnote saying which theme packs are images used with persmission or are royalty-free. I tried to find information about your themes, but you have no "about" information stating that you use royalty-free images. I'd be HAPPY to support your work based on legally used images! :D

What I can’t understand is why you are calling me the aggressive one? Is it because I sell such a big theme pack with 100 themes for only $3.99?

No, it's because you're taking work that isn't your own and trying to make a profit off it. :| Selling work you don't own just isn't right. That would be like someone taking articles off this site, spending the time to turn them into nice eBooks, then selling them without my permission. I don't care how much work that person put into the process, they didn't ask me, and that's theft. That's what you are doing.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from - taking the work of others and selling it for profit is wrong, no matter how much work you put into the themes.

KAMware

06-15-2003, 11:37 PM

Some notes of interest concerning Copyrights. I got this from the US Copyright web site by the way. I did not get their permission to copy it!

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law.

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

Three things are required to register a Copyright:
A properly completed application form.
A nonrefundable filing fee of $30 for each application
A nonreturnable deposit of the work being registered.

I doubt that every image out there has followed this procedure!

Something to ponder... If someone takes a photograph of a scuplture is it copyright infringement?

If so then there are plenty of plenty of violators out there. If not then
if some one takes a photo of a Lord Of The Rings poster and makes
a theme is it copyright infringement?

The copyright law states you cannot COPY a copyrighted work without
permission. There is nothing about selling it. Everyone on this thread
has broken and will probably break the copyright laws. Every mp3 made,
every video made from the TV or DVD or whatever.

It is something like speeding. Most everyone has and does speed...
but just a little... :wink: we as a society generally accept that until
something bad happens.

When it comes to copyright it is ok for us to copy other peoples work
as long as we do nothing to make money or fame with it. :?:

Oh well... people it is fun talking about it all. 8)

CESkins

06-15-2003, 11:48 PM

The copyright law states you cannot COPY a copyrighted work without permission. There is nothing about selling it.
...so therefore is it OK to sell someone else's artwork so long as you find a novel way to copy it? Let's see what the US copyright law and fair use (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:hr2652.rfs:) has to say about that:

`Sec. 1202. Prohibition against misappropriation`
Any person who extracts, or uses in commerce, all or a substantial part, measured either quantitatively or qualitatively, of a collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained by another person through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources, so as to cause harm to the actual or potential market of that other person, or a successor in interest of that other person, for a product or service that incorporates that collection of information and is offered or intended to be offered for sale or otherwise in commerce by that other person, or a successor in interest of that person, shall be liable to that person or successor in interest for the remedies set forth in section 1206.

`Sec. 1207. Criminal offenses and penalties

`(a) VIOLATION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1202 willfully, and--

`(A) does so for direct or indirect commercial advantage or financial gain; or

`(B) causes loss or damage aggregating $10,000 or more in any 1-year period to the person who gathered, organized, or maintained the information concerned,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(2) INAPPLICABILITY- This section shall not apply to an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational, scientific, or research institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment.

`(b) PENALTIES- An offense under subsection (a) shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. A second or subsequent offense under subsection (a) shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.

KAMware

06-16-2003, 12:13 AM

Ah! Goodie goodie! I knew someone would grab hold of that line! :)

I did not say or mean it is OK ok or not OK to find a novel way to copy anything for any purpose. I just find it amusing how WE like to Adjust our perceptions of the copyright law for our benefit.

It is against the law to copy a protected item. Period. Now if you get greedy and make money on the copy then everyone gets in an uproar as they don't do that they just copy them and give them away! That's not bad is it? After all that artist should appreciate the fact I am giving away their work. They should appreciate that I have copies of their work in my computer, on discs etc. I am not planning on making money on them. I just make copies of them and everone knows that's not bad. 8)

It's ok to go 5 or 10 mph over the limit but don't let me catch ya doin' 20 or 30.

This stuff just wakes me up.... :D

CESkins

06-16-2003, 03:34 AM

It is against the law to copy a protected item. Period.
Sorry but I have to disagree and so does Federal copyright and fair use laws:
Sec. 1203. Permitted acts

`(a) INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF INFORMATION AND OTHER INSUBSTANTIAL PARTS- Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the extraction or use of an individual item of information, or other insubstantial part of a collection of information, in itself. An individual item of information, including a work of authorship, shall not itself be considered a substantial part of a collection of information under section 1202. Nothing in this subsection shall permit the repeated or systematic extraction or use of individual items or insubstantial parts of a collection of information so as to circumvent the prohibition contained in section 1202.

`(b) GATHERING OR USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH OTHER MEANS- Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from independently gathering information or using information obtained by means other than extracting it from a collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained by another person through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources.

`(c) USE OF INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION- Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from extracting information, or from using information within any entity or organization, for the sole purpose of verifying the accuracy of information independently gathered, organized, or maintained by that person. Under no circumstances shall the information so extracted or used be made available to others in a manner that harms the actual or potential market for the collection of information from which it is extracted or used.

`(d) NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR RESEARCH USES- Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from extracting or using information for nonprofit educational, scientific, or research purposes in a manner that does not harm the actual or potential market for the product or service referred to in section 1202.

`(e) NEWS REPORTING- Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from extracting or using information for the sole purpose of news reporting, including news gathering, dissemination, and comment, unless the information so extracted or used is time sensitive, has been gathered by a news reporting entity for distribution to a particular market, and has not yet been distributed to that market, and the extraction or use is part of a consistent pattern engaged in for the purpose of direct competition in that market.

`(f) TRANSFER OF COPY- Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the owner of a particular lawfully made copy of all or part of a collection of information from selling or otherwise disposing of the possession of that copy.

`Sec. 1204. Exclusions

`(a) GOVERNMENT COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION-

`(1) EXCLUSION- Protection under this chapter shall not extend to collections of information gathered, organized, or maintained by or for a government entity, whether Federal, State, or local, including any employee or agent of such entity, or any person exclusively licensed by such entity, within the scope of the employment, agency, or license. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude protection under this chapter for information gathered, organized, or maintained by such an agent or licensee that is not within the scope of such agency or license, or by a Federal or State educational institution in the course of engaging in education or scholarship.

`(2) EXCEPTION- The exclusion under paragraph (1) does not apply to any information required to be collected and disseminated--

`(A) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by a national securities exchange, a registered securities association, or a registered securities information processor, subject to section 1205(g) of this title; or

`(B) under the Commodity Exchange Act by a contract market, subject to section 1205(g) of this title.

`(b) COMPUTER PROGRAMS-

`(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under this chapter shall not extend to computer programs, including, but not limited to, any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a collection of information, or any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.

`(2) INCORPORATED COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION- A collection of information that is otherwise subject to protection under this chapter is not disqualified from such protection solely because it is incorporated into a computer program.
I routinely copy journal articles to read that are clearly copyrighted. The bold faced, blue text in the above quote applies to individuals like myself in the scientific arena. I have no intent on using the photocopied material for profit and in fact, I cite all referenced work so that the original author gets credit. Copyright law does not mean you can't make a copy period...that's why fair use laws exist. If there were no reasonable exceptions and exclusions to copyright laws, an information society like the one we live in would quickly grind to a halt with frivilous lawsuits. :(

davidspalding

06-16-2003, 04:56 AM

Oops, did I offend someone? So sorry. You run the risk of getting your feelings hurt when you freely edit copyrighted images and sell them in a new packaging/format. Putting a lot of time and effort and sweating over a keyboard well into the night does not make it excusable.

"Everyone's doing it" ... "it is reality?" Not an excuse. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. ;P

Curmudgeon

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 05:21 AM

I routinely copy journal articles to read that are clearly copyrighted. The bold faced, blue text in the above quote applies to individuals like myself in the scientific arena. I have no intent on using the photocopied material for profit and in fact, I cite all referenced work so that the original author gets credit. Copyright law does not mean you can't make a copy period...that's why fair use laws exist.
Yes, Fair Use applies in your case, but not the case we're discussing here. While extracting a single image or frame from a movie may be considered insubstantial, I believe that distributing a derivative work (which a theme is in this case) would be a clear violation of copyright law regardless if that theme is charged for or not.

On a moral scale, it may be "worse" to profit from the theme, just like stealing to get rich is "worse" than stealing to be able to eat. However, distributing the work for free also seems to break the law, and advocating that people should do that seems wrong. I doubt anybody would encourage somebody to burn a copy of the "Lord of the Rings" DVD and give it away for free.

Let's face it -- these are just themes. They're not necessary or even useful. If someone can't create their own "Lord of the Rings" theme, then do they really need one?

I'll admit my bias in that I don't use themes myself, being more than happy with the default Pocket PC themes. I do use Dashboard, but I only have one skin that didn't come with Dashboard on my iPAQ, and it's not a photo.

Steve

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 05:26 AM

Oops, did I offend someone? So sorry. You run the risk of getting your feelings hurt when you freely edit copyrighted images and sell them in a new packaging/format. Putting a lot of time and effort and sweating over a keyboard well into the night does not make it excusable.

I would have put it a bit more succinctly. Being a hard-working thief stills means you're a thief. :-)

Steve

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 06:59 AM

I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

--Ian Clarke

CESkins

06-16-2003, 07:28 AM

Yes, Fair Use applies in your case, but not the case we're discussing here. While extracting a single image or frame from a movie may be considered insubstantial, I believe that distributing a derivative work (which a theme is in this case) would be a clear violation of copyright law regardless if that theme is charged for or not.
Pony99CA I was just giving an example to negate the statement that "It is against the law to copy a protected item. Period.. Clearly distributing a copyrighted image free or for profit without permission is a violation of the copyright laws. However laws are not absolutes and the fair use acts permits copies to be made in certain exceptions.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door
You are lucky in this hypothetical situation that you only got thrown out the door. :D

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 10:13 AM

I was just giving an example to negate the statement that "It is against the law to copy a protected item. Period..
I understood that. I just wanted to build on your bringing up Fair Use.

By the way, it really takes too long to say, "It is against the law to copy a protected item except as governed by the Fair Use doctrine." :-D

Steve

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 10:16 AM

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

It was a very smart bar you were in, then. They realized that fire isn't a creative expression, and therefore not subject to copyright laws.

Now, if you had patented that method of lighting cigarettes, then you probably could have enforced your rights. Sadly, I suspect prior art would have prevented that, too. :razz:

Steve

KAMware

06-16-2003, 11:18 AM

By the way, it really takes too long to say, "It is against the law to copy a protected item except as governed by the Fair Use doctrine."

Plus it would not have irked someone into replying so wonderfully! :D

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 12:43 PM

...and therefore not subject to copyright laws.

The story isn't about the law. You don't seriously believe that just because something is illegal it is then automatically wrong? Fifty years ago it was illegal for a black person to sit in the front side of a bus.

I just feel that there is something inherently wrong with the notion that after you give/sell me something you can force me to use it in a specific way only. Somehow I don't feel that is your decision to make. You don't want me to use your pictures in a particular way? Don't publish them. That IS your decision to make.

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 01:04 PM

I just feel that there is something inherently wrong with the notion that after you give/sell me something you can force me to use it in a specific way only.
I don't have a problem with you using it any way you like. However, if you start giving it away to other people, that's when there's a problem.

Making copies for yourself is OK; once you give a copy away, though, it's no longer you using it. That's why it's called copyright, not useright.

You don't want me to use your pictures in a particular way? Don't publish them. That IS your decision to make.
If everyone felt that way, there would be no home movie industry today. The studios would only show movies in theaters, like they did in the past.

Similarly, almost no recorded music would be available. At best, you'd have radio, as publishers would be worried about one person just copying the music and giving it away (or selling it).

Is that what you really want?

Steve

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 01:32 PM

I don't have a problem with you using it any way you like. However, if you start giving it away to other people, that's when there's a problem.

Just like in that bar :)

If everyone felt that way, there would be no home movie industry today. The studios would only show movies in theaters, like they did in the past.

Similarly, almost no recorded music would be available. At best, you'd have radio, as publishers would be worried about one person just copying the music and giving it away (or selling it).

Is that what you really want?

I happened to believe that would not be the case. You are assuming people paying authors only because they are forced to. You don't hold very high opinion of the human race, do you? :)

GoldKey

06-16-2003, 01:49 PM

I happened to believe that would not be the case. You are assuming people paying authors only because they are forced to. You don't hold very high opinion of the human race, do you? :)

Based on Napster, I would disagree with you. I don't think many people said, "Oh I downloaded a song and liked it, so I think I will send the publisher a check."

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 02:05 PM

Based on Napster, I would disagree with you. I don't think many people said, "Oh I downloaded a song and liked it, so I think I will send the publisher a check."

There was no convenient way to do it. Imagine a site where you can download anything for free, but near every item there is a button "pay author $1" (that's how much artists currently make from every CD sold). I may be wrong, but I think in that world great artists would still be millionaires.

GoldKey

06-16-2003, 02:19 PM

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 02:24 PM

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 02:26 PM

You are assuming people paying authors only because they are forced to. You don't hold very high opinion of the human race, do you? :)
If nobody committed criminal acts, we wouldn't need the police. Because I realize that some people do commit criminal acts, I support having police. Does that mean I don't have a high opinion of the human race, or does it mean I'm simply realistic?

By the way, when was the last time you sent Jason a check for this Web site?

Steve

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 02:33 PM

If nobody committed criminal acts, we wouldn't need the police. Because I realize that some people do commit criminal acts, I support having police. Does that mean I don't have a high opinion of the human race, or does it mean I'm simply realistic?

You sad the movie and music industries would not exist, therefore you were assuming that EVERYONE would be doing the wrong thing, not just "some" people.

By the way, when was the last time you sent Jason a check for this Web site?

I, in particular, am a very bad person. But we are not talking about me.

GoldKey

06-16-2003, 02:38 PM

Stephen King tried this with his ebook.

"For the first few installments, enough readers paid a voluntary download fee. But by the fourth installment, paid readers had dipped to 46 percent of all downloads, according to King's assistant, Marsha DeFilippo."

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-249133.html

So more than half the people were taking it without paying.

I think those numbers support my argument. 46% is waaay more then enough to support these industries (writers/music/movies).

Your original arguement was that people would pay for the content, not that enough would pay to cover the creators costs. I don't think less than half the users paying supports the arugement that people will do the right thing on their own and pay for content.

GoldKey

06-16-2003, 02:40 PM

By the way, when was the last time you sent Jason a check for this Web site?

Steve

If Jason had a "Donate Here" button or some other option to pay, I would gladly chip in.
:D

Pony99CA

06-16-2003, 02:54 PM

You sad the movie and music industries would not exist, therefore you were assuming that EVERYONE would be doing the wrong thing, not just "some" people.

Your conclusion is flawed. I did not assume everyone would steal -- just enough people to make to recorded media not economically viable. If that's the best logic you have, you're out of your league. Please research the logical fallacy of attacking a straw man.

By the way, when was the last time you sent Jason a check for this Web site?
I, in particular, am a very bad person. But we are not talking about me.
Actually, we were talking about you, as you brought up your feelings about sharing and copyright. Now you admit that you're a very bad person. I guess that explains your stance on the issue. The prosecution rests.

Steve

Coordinator

06-16-2003, 03:02 PM

Right... I am out of my league, we were talking about me personally, and that really helped to explain my stance on the issue.

You won the argument.
Congratulations.

ntractv

06-16-2003, 11:07 PM

Jonathon Watkins

06-16-2003, 11:45 PM

A good number of members here and at other forums use avatars of publically recognized cartoons, movies, actors, etc. We come across a pic we like and shrink it down to use as an avatar. Are we in violation of copyrights?

That's fair use surely? In the UK I believe you can freely copy up to 10% of a book or magazine, so one frame out of a film or a small part of a picture would be similar?

Kati Compton

06-16-2003, 11:56 PM

This brings a thought to my mind and I am guilty of it just as well. A good number of members here and at other forums use avatars of publically recognized cartoons, movies, actors, etc. We come across a pic we like and shrink it down to use as an avatar. Are we in violation of copyrights?
Not being a lawyer, I would say yes.

I have what initially might seem like conflicting opinions on this. I think it should (though I know it actually isn't) be ok to distribute something like themes from SOME copyrighted images if you do not charge. I do not think you should distribute copyrighted .mp3s.

I don't always agree with the letter of the law, but I think there are intents here that matter. Let's try two examples.

1. You make a theme from an image off of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan site (which technically probably can't post those images, btw). You do not charge for it, but you distribute it.

2. You make a theme from a living artist's original work. Say a digital artist that sells their own desktop theme packs of their original image. You purchase the theme pack, then resize the image and make a PPC theme. You do not charge for it, but you distribute it.

I would argue that the first is okay, but the second is not. Looking at it from the point of view of the person it has been distributed to -

In the first, the "artist" making the image sold it to the copyright holders, who then market using that image. By having that theme, you will not then stop watching Buffy, which would then decrease their worth in ad revenue. I might feel differently if they themselves were selling themes, as people would choose to get one for free rather than purchase one at least 9x out of 10.

In the second, you are taking work that you now will not need to purchase to enjoy. I guess I see it as a difference of replacement. You are not really capturing/replacing a TV show or a movie by a still image. Wheras you are if you take someone's original photography or art.

As for a selling situation... I'm opposed for both above cases. I don't think it would be right to sell illegal mp3s, or illegal eBooks. The rights to that material do not belong to you, and therefore you shouldn't profit on it. I know I wouldn't be happy about someone selling my silly cat avatar for profit, though that would be a pretty lame thing to do. ;)

On the other hand, charging a reasonable amount for themes of freely available images seems perfectly reasonable to me. Same as charging a nominal amount for a public-domain text as a fully formatted eBook. But in this case, it's reasonable to expect that people, rather than paying for it, will find a (legal) way to get it for free, and this is fine. But that's a separate issue, and I digress.

Kati Compton

06-16-2003, 11:57 PM

That's fair use surely? In the UK I believe you can freely copy up to 10% of a book or magazine, so one frame out of a film or a small part of a picture would be similar?
Here nursery schools and day care centers are prohibited from painting images of Mickey Mouse on the walls. Which I think is excessive, but there it is.

ctmagnus

06-17-2003, 03:56 AM

Based on Napster, I would disagree with you. I don't think many people said, "Oh I downloaded a song and liked it, so I think I will send the publisher a check."

I would! But then again, there's no way in h-e-doublehockeysticks that I'd download an entire album. If >~40% of the album is worth downloading in any way, shape or form then that album is worth purchasing imo. As for the paying the publisher thing, I'd go for it but only as long as you get to decide the format, bitrate and quality of the file you download and you only get the track(s) you want and no extraneous cr@p along with it. But I'd much rather pay the artist directly in any case.

Pony99CA

06-17-2003, 10:07 AM