Thanks for the comments. I am still trying to find the origin of the image. However, I shall take note for anything I post in the future to be sure to follow the licenses more closely.
Peace.......
i have seen lots and lots of work on kde-look that possibly breaks copyright...but who cares? What is the big deal?
I think this is a really nice looking splash screen, and I am definitely going to download and use it.
so sue me ;o)
The problem is not that you will be sued. The danger is that KDE-Look.org may get sued, if there are too much copyright violations on this site.
This is like putting drugs in the pocket of another and saying "I don't care", when he gets arrested for that.
i know that it is the wrong thing to do, dont misunderstand, and i would be pissed off if someone stole my copyrighted work...but i just think some ppl are taking it too far. soon someone will copyright the color blue, and sue everyone with blue eyes, and their parents for making them!
no, it's not ...
kde-look.org is not responsabel according to their corpyright notice
All rights reserved. KDE-Look.org has no liability for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
If you know where you got the image, why don't you simply email or ask the original author? I have found that most authors don't mind as long as you ask them for permission. Frankly I think they like the extra exposure and it would look good to some people on a resume that their work is being used in multiple mediums.
Just my .02, and it worked for me on a personal project and for the Rade8 iconset if anyone remembers that fiasco.
All I know up to this point is called an artistic licence. Doing some image manipulation to create a personal splash for my Amarok install. I called it an amarok splash because that's what it is. As far as the GPL thing, as I have said, I put together a splash and decided to share it. Laws that govern artwork and photos don't prohibit this kind of thing, so.. but the GPL thing was selected because I didn't notice that part during the upload process.
Not even the AL allows you to use somebody else's photo in your work. No license grants the right to use another's work without explicit permission.
Under copyright law (at least here in the USA) you can only manipulate photos, etc, for your *own* personal use. Once you make a derivative, *unless* it falls into the parody/satire realm (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree this does not,) you can not distribute it.
I don't mean to be down on your work, because quite frankly, I think it's nice, but the fact remains, if we want people to respect our art, the GPL, etc, we as a community must also return the favor.
Ratings & Comments
9 Comments
Thanks for the comments. I am still trying to find the origin of the image. However, I shall take note for anything I post in the future to be sure to follow the licenses more closely. Peace.......
i have seen lots and lots of work on kde-look that possibly breaks copyright...but who cares? What is the big deal? I think this is a really nice looking splash screen, and I am definitely going to download and use it. so sue me ;o)
The problem is not that you will be sued. The danger is that KDE-Look.org may get sued, if there are too much copyright violations on this site. This is like putting drugs in the pocket of another and saying "I don't care", when he gets arrested for that.
i know that it is the wrong thing to do, dont misunderstand, and i would be pissed off if someone stole my copyrighted work...but i just think some ppl are taking it too far. soon someone will copyright the color blue, and sue everyone with blue eyes, and their parents for making them!
no, it's not ... kde-look.org is not responsabel according to their corpyright notice All rights reserved. KDE-Look.org has no liability for any content or goods on this site. All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
If you know where you got the image, why don't you simply email or ask the original author? I have found that most authors don't mind as long as you ask them for permission. Frankly I think they like the extra exposure and it would look good to some people on a resume that their work is being used in multiple mediums. Just my .02, and it worked for me on a personal project and for the Rade8 iconset if anyone remembers that fiasco.
All I know up to this point is called an artistic licence. Doing some image manipulation to create a personal splash for my Amarok install. I called it an amarok splash because that's what it is. As far as the GPL thing, as I have said, I put together a splash and decided to share it. Laws that govern artwork and photos don't prohibit this kind of thing, so.. but the GPL thing was selected because I didn't notice that part during the upload process.
Not even the AL allows you to use somebody else's photo in your work. No license grants the right to use another's work without explicit permission. Under copyright law (at least here in the USA) you can only manipulate photos, etc, for your *own* personal use. Once you make a derivative, *unless* it falls into the parody/satire realm (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree this does not,) you can not distribute it. I don't mean to be down on your work, because quite frankly, I think it's nice, but the fact remains, if we want people to respect our art, the GPL, etc, we as a community must also return the favor.
Where did you get this photo? Is it GPL? I doubt. So first one: splash can't be GPLed and second: if it's not GPL it definitely won't be Amarok Splash