I concur....

Moving right along...

Rats and I was gona post my RIPS are US list...
Oh well for the most part it was Devart related anyway.
So now we can relax more and it is a new year with new things for everyone to enjoy!

Alperium you do such good work yourself. Plus with as much 3D talent as you have it is great to see you move to something new. Maybe giving windowblinds a good try. This will test your patience.
You can contact me and I'll help with your project - whatever that may be in SKS6.

SGT  

I really do not do much else anymore. Just Vista and XP Windowblinds.

I've asked him this a few times already, Al you have great talent, I'd love to see a wb made by you, you've got some serious skills bro!!!   

to Shelbygt_the_Car~!: thank you.
to unclerob: thanks for the compliment my friend.Maybe I'll make WindowBlinds later.
Now I like Bootskins LogonXP and Icons.
I know what to make Bootskins is not prestigious but it is pleasant for me.
Thanks for support.

Skin for you.... everything else, will fall in to place.

I wondered why you took the dual spider logon down,ok so you did'nt give the copy thing like you've shown here tho there was a link to the site in that original upload of yours,however the written thing above is much better since links can be missed & it's good to know if there's a wallpaper that can be had as well as the logon etc.

i can't read stuff like this and not put my 2 cents in.

fan-art is original authentic artwork based on copyrighted material.

modifying, changing the medium, or altering the application of work(s) when that party neither has authorship, nor copyright permission, and then either takes credit for it, or in taking no credit, or even giving credit to the rightful author; and not even charging for all this effort but freely giving it away is still stealing and breaking copyright law. there is no gray area.

material isn't copyrighted upon publishing, uploading, or posting. it doesn't have to be specifically labeled as copyrighted or bare the © mark to be protected. all work created is protected by copyright law in the moment it becomes "tangible". tangible in this sense does not mean physical material, it means when it is no longer vague in perception or no longer reliant on envisioning to be expressed. when it becomes discernible it is protected by copyright law, effective immediately. submitting work to the copyright office is only to substantiate proof, doing so is not required for it to be recognized or under protection. as well, just because there is not any specific information listed anywhere saying "you are not allowed to modify this to be used in any other means or craft" doesn't mean you can, they are not required to make available a list of guidelines and rights an end user may posses or even give any additional rights. but you CAN be sure you don't have any rights except for personal viewing or personal use, unless specifically they state it.

to touch on someone else's point a bit, logo's exist in a different realm of copyright law. while any artwork or related materials existing in a logo will be protected by traditional copyright, logo's and similar branding devices including names, phrases, symbols, designs and imagery that define identity are under classification of trademark. rather than dealing with the "right to copy", it deals with "trademark use" of something, and exists under a very different set of more definitive rules. using someone's logo as your own is stealing work and therefore breaking copyright, but just the mere placement or similarity is enough to cause violation to protected interests for trademarks. hence the aforementioned problem with using things such as sports logos. similar to how copyright works it does not need to be submitted to any branch to be protected, but it needs to be clearly identified in order to ensure awareness. unlike copyright however they are displayed differently and are under different degrees of protection depending if they have been submitted for verification. if it has not been, then it is simply labeled as ™ for "trademark", and if verified it is then labeled as ® signifying the trademark has been "registered".

there's also patent as well, but that doesn't concern this conversation at all, but for curiosities and understandings sake, to state perhaps the biggest difference with it, the government does have to approve a patent for it to be protected, and it's a really an annoying process, though worthwhile if the need arises.

moving on...

crediting the source you steal work from is really just a very respectful and polite way to admit theft and make it extremely easy to prove. while many may have good intent in doing so, and many aren't aware they are doing something not allowed, if this were pertaining the mustang scenario, it would basically be telling the police "yes this is a fine piece of machinery i'm driving here officer, i've been a fan of these babies for quite some time now, i got it from this guy up the street if you were curious and would like to check it out. i had to change the ugly wheels that were on it, and tint the windows, but that's what makes it my own ya know?"

the original example of stealing the mustang though, is flawed in reasoning. the excuse given in court is really just "they got away with it so i should be able to, too", since the example you are giving is not actually in relation to fan-art, but passing it off as if it were. in an example of it truly being fan-art, it would be more in bounds of changing the appearance by means of a shell type kit, or crafting a custom/replica car, which is of course perfectly fine.



legitimate fan-art, not the rips trying to be passed off as though they were, exist in fair use when used outside of commercial purposes. or to say, in no way related to money, not slanderous or damaging to reputation (outside of parody) and for enjoyment only. creating work off another copyrighted image is in no manner illegal. but since i mentioned parody i might as well explain, it should be noted parody work exists free of all copyright restrictions, but parodies while being able to make use of it, can still not attack, slander, or cause damage to the reputation of copyrighted work in outright manner. think of star-wars and spaceballs if that helps. to the point though, copyright does not protect against existence, it protects against usage. creating fan-art is as legal as any other art. however, it must be noted that you hold copyright to a piece of work, which consists of copyrighted characters, designs, etc. since multiple parties hold copyright to it, you cannot receive any direct income from that work without legal permission from the other copyright holder, likewise, just because it's their character you drew, they couldn't sell your art of it without your express permission. but in the case of ripped work, there is only one copyright holder, and the person using the art in that case has absolutely no legal ability or right to do anything other than amuse them self without permission from that holder.

with fan-art work, you do have that legal ability. you have the ability to use it in absolutely any non-commercial related way you deem fit, such as making a wallpaper and plastering it up on wincustomize for the rest of us to see and use. however, say in the case i drew a picture of ariel from the little mermaid and used it in a wallpaper i submitted here. if disney requested wincustomize to take it down, it will be, without my consent, immediately removed, and for 2 reasons.

the first reason is respect. respect for a rights holders wishes, as anyone here would hope to have others respect their own opinions as well, and respect for asking only the most simple and painless course of action be followed when an agreement can't be made. as much as any mod or admin would respect my desire to share the work i've made, when there are multiple rights owners, each holds equal rights, and if they are in disagreement it is the respectable decision to simply disallow it. in a simple analogy, if the disney is the girl, and i'm the guy, and i get what you would call, and in this case since it's disney and this is a family site the best way to word it, a little bit twiterpated... well, if the guy wants to tango but the girl doesn't, logically you wouldn't go through with it, and if you did, i'm sorry to say but you just raped disney. oranges and apples here of course, but the reasoning is exactly the same regarding which one is the obvious and respectable way to handle it. it takes 2 "yes's" to tango, but only one "no" to kill the music.

the second reason is wincustomize is smart enough to take an active interest in covering their own ass, and avoid headaches and drama. but why would that be? since fan-art is totally acceptable according to my previous statements? it's a free item, only with intent to be enjoyed, and neither myself nor wincustomize is bringing in any amount of income from it. the reason is still related to income in the majority of cases, but the factor here is reputation. if they find either my portrayal of their character or its use to be distasteful or feckless, if they disapprove of where it is being displayed or made accessible from, if they simply decide they would rather govern more control over circulation since distribution is a big part of copyright covers, or that they think the site that it exists on to not be reputable or simply do not want their work associated with them, then they can begin to substantiate a claim that such activity is causing damage to the image and reputation of them and their work, and in turn, negatively affect their revenues. but in a case that perhaps their work is as well non-profit just like yours, reputation alone is enough to make a case out of. they don't need to even threaten the possibility of building a case over it, that they of course may or may not win. it's simply easy enough for someone to know it's better just to avoid the possibility of the situation rising in potential problematics and headaches altogether. in creating the character or whatever, 99% of any court or even survey is going to agree the original author holds more rights to what what is considered acceptable to do with art based on their work, so expectantly most people come to respect the original creators wishes by default.

remember the case of pepsi and other companies using yahoo as a "what they believed to be a valid means" for advertisement? then when finding out their product was being endorsed in the "pedophiles r us" chat rooms, they very naturally felt this was a bad association for their brand and companies image. demanded it was pulled altogether from any correlation of yahoo, and filed a lawsuit. it's the same concept here, just on a much less extreme level of circumstance.

that is why if a copyright holder, who in most cases will simply and politely ask for something to be omitted, it respectfully will be removed without question or notification to the poster. it's of course also a decision that might be made during moderation without a copyright holder ever having to request it.

but, since such viewpoints are subjective and defined by each individual copyright holder, if there is a belief of infringement, something must happen first to make them feel that way since the mere act of freely sharing your work regardless of subject is not breaking any rules, they must then make notification of their beliefs after the situation occurs, and if it goes further than just requesting the removal of the material and they take it to court, validity must of course be proven that they were in some way substantially impeded on and not just whining. but because the best choice is to just remove the splinter, it rarely happens. in many cases you just know or at least know it's very likely you won't be able to use it without a second party objecting to it, such as the NBA, or apple, in which case an admin/mod will make the decision immediately rather than deal with the headaches later.

but because the act of posting "legitimate" piece of fan-art is not in and of itself stepping on any toes or breaking any rules, this is why fan-art and similar original works are allowed to be posted on here without permission, and it also why a copyright holder must find it to be a problem and "request" it be taken down rather than never be allowed at all. it's usually unclear whether they will find it to be an "issue" or otherwise, and since by all rules and guidelines it is perfectly acceptable in all cases when it's not being put in direct context, it's really not worth worrying about their opinions and beliefs until the time comes they decide to offer them, if ever.

it's obviously unclear whether they'll disagree to directly taking their work and making a wallpaper or bootscreen out of it either, which is often a cause to the misconception that it's ok to do so, especially if you credit them for the work, but that is not the case. however, just like fan-art or completely original works, you have every right to turn them into wallpapers, bootscreens, or do anything else to it as you see fit. the difference is, whatever modifications or uses you have applied, you have absolutely no right to distribute it, to sell it, or to wear it as a party hat, unless the copyright holder is both aware, and has given consenting approval and permission to follow through with it.

the other problem that seems to happen is someone wants to do something but can't figure out how to get a hold of the copyright holder to try and obtain permission, or if they do reach them, get told no. i think most people are under the delusion just because you ask they'll say yes, and that while it might be hard or bothersome to get their permission, there will always be a way to get it. this is not the case. it's possible you might not know who the rights holder is, or be able to get in contact with the, or get permission regardless of what you do. and if you can't get in touch with them to ask, or you ask and get outright rejected or they tell your to blow off, but you decide to submit it anyway... regardless if you credit them for their work or not, you are stealing, your submission is considered a rip, and you are held accountable for the possible consequences you might face. in terms of being wincustomize, the consequence is likely to be just having the work removed and a simple warning that what you did is not acceptable. but even with such a light punishment, probably the majority of people will argue they're being treated unfairly and whoever removed their work is an unruly art-nazi abusing their power and playing favorites. in the fairness that all people are going to make mistakes or don't know the full end to all sides of things, a warning followed by the appropriate action or removal and saying "no harm done" is the human way of going about things, but to anyone that thinks they're being treated badly, try changing your viewpoint. besides the hope you'll understand it is both wrong and for what reason, if nothing else, i assure you it's a better alternative than being exiled and unable to submit or post anything, and it's certainly a lot better than receiving fancy legal writing in the mail or phone calls from lawyers.

if you steal work, whether you're ignorant to the details of what is acceptable, or you are knowingly breaking the rules from either spite or stubborness; what you have done is wrong. some people get away with it, many things will go unnoticed, but even if knowing full well that something is wrong, you go ahead and do it anyway... well with a little bit of understanding and acknowledgment, a pinch of regret, and if you like to spice things up a bit you could even put in a dash of apology for good measure, it can still be said your actions were simply a mistake. just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean you're dealing with a person who is without any alternative description, bad. and people of course usually deserve a second chance, even though they're not always given it, and of course... an explanation is always in order as to why it was a problem in the first place. you might still have to deal with some sort of consequences, but that's inherent of learning anything, thankfully the people here are rather forgiving, even to inconsiderate people that probably don't deserve it.

i don't pretend to be the spokesperson of wincustomize's or stardock's inner workings in saying the above, but i have some background with working on legalities of some things and i've got my opinions like everyone else. but if i missed anyones point or something is unclear that i've said, let me know and rant a little more just for you.

p.s.

i was lying, you can legally wear anything as a party hat, so long as you don't commit any other ethical crimes while in the construction of said party hat~

that was only 2 cents worth?

damn

Horizon . . . that was brilliant.  Thank you so much.  I ask now for your permission to use parts of that all over the place (with citation of course).

Again, thank you.

....

well i only intended 2 cents worth. you know... until i decided to check back to see if there were any replies i'd need to address, i really wasn't aware just how much i wrote until i had to scroll past all of it. i'm actually surprised anyone read it in its entirety.

but if there's something you'd find use in pulling from it, then by all means, quote me as much as you like.

looked like about $50/hour to me, with a $500 retainer fee.......

Actually I was told back a few years ago that if I made a 49ers skin using the 49ers logo that would be considered fan art and OK...

That's an excellent post   But don't you wish the law was a lot simpler?

The law in the UK is very strict on copyright. You could, for example, draw a picture of, say, Buggs Bunny and publish it. That is called fan art. What you can't do is use anyone else's image in the construction. No 'fan art', no 'fair use', no ifs or buts. Using any image which you have not solely created is copyright theft. Also, you could not even draw yourself a logo or trademark - that would be illegal too.

So, aren't you pleased the site is not hosted in the UK? Abot 90% of the Bootskin, dock/misc icons and Logon sections would go, along with a few well known skins. You wouldn't be able to include a font in anything without first purchasing a licence to distribute (about £650 per font), etc etc.

Copyright law extends to other areas too. So many people have VCRs, the authorities turn a blind eye, but copying TV programs is also illegal. So is copying music to your pc - though the Government is currently looking at relaxing that law, again due to widespread use (and common sense).

Nope, think yourselves lucky WinCustomize is hosted where it is