I must admit I find all this very confusing. Based on what I read, it would seem to me that some of the screenshot gallery could be in copyright infringement. I had a SS rejected last week for not meeting WC guidelines as to the Wallpaper I used and I gave a credit. Yet, I see many shots that do not give artist credits and many that simply say I found this wallpaper on the internet...don't remember where! How can that be acceptable based on what is written above. I must be missing something as I don't understand the difference. At this point, it seems best not to post anything unless you make it yourself or use material from the WC galleries[with credits of course]!

With screenshots you are using someone else's wallpaper. Only they have the right to control its distribution. That means is you post a screenshot where the wallpaper is sufficiently unobscured that someone could extract the image and use it, then that is effectively redistributing the image without the author's consent.

The secret with screenshots is always to cover some part of the wallpaper which cannot be cloned or recreated in any way. In that way the copyright of the wallpaper author is protected   

Do you mean that no image or graphic in the wallpaper should be left in such a condition that another person could come along and crop it out for example and use it as their own work. So if that is the case, than someone doing a ss should design it such that an app ie. clear weather widget, is placed over graphic to obscure it?

Yes. It is always best to cover part of the wallpaper which cannot then be copied.

What you see a lot of is people with a nice clean looking wallpaper, who then arrange items around the main image. Looks great, but leaves the wallpaper open to be copied...

If there is a main image, or central image, it is best to cover part of that. If it is not, the screenshot will be rejected.

Got it!!! Finally makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me as I was totally confused as to why my SS was rejected but I understand the difference now. Is it permissible to adjust the SS and resubmit latter?

Yes   

that reminds me of something i forgot to point out, and i should probably make note i know almost absolutely nothing of any copyright laws except the ones existing in the u.s. i'm not even sure how many of those follow through to international copyright laws. so if you live outside the us, or have work on sites that are hosting outside of it, don't bother quoting what i said in defense.

but compared to the uk, some similarities have ensued about whether you could copy music to your computer here as well, for either backup purposes or for stuff like mp3 players. i remember apple fighting in defense that the user purchases rights to the song itself in regards to exclusive listening, but not being limited in what manner an end user chooses to, such as being able to put it on other media such as their personal computer or mp3 player. rather than in a case of having only purchased a cd, the song would need to be repurchased if a user wanted it for another medium or similar purposes, or even backup. or that simply other rights would need purchased to allow doing so. apple and others fought that a person had bought the right to listen to the song, rather than bought the right to only use it in a singular chosen medium. also fighting ideas such as if the disc scratched, the user would be forced to repurchase the cd since a backup couldn't be made, and would have lost any and all of their rights due to its destruction, requiring them repurchase the cd to reinstate those rights. this standpoint or rather them actively defending it, was likely all due to the ipod and itunes obviously, but i thank them regardless of whether it was all in interest of money lol.

vcr's though, i'm not even sure if it's considered exactly legal here either, or simply considered a non-issue, but i assume it's similar to music, that if you have the right to watch televised productions, especially in the sense of having to purchase that right, how and when are not of any compromising nature. i think everyone really just gave into that common sense logic, and now instead rely on stuff like "high definition" to argue which version you've actually purchased the rights to, which admittedly makes some sense except in the case where they almost make it sound like you were sold a sub-par version intentionally to string us along through purchasing the same thing multiple times rather than limitations of the medium made it that way. it seems more obvious when put in terms of music, where unlike picture, most people can't even discern the quality difference between cd quality and "high def" music.

much of that could be taken with some measure of the grain of salt approach though.

--

now it's time for trademarks and their use 101, which by the way, is intended to be more than 2 cents worth.

kona, throughout this discussion lets avoid any ifs ands or buts about legitimacy of the work such as source and get straight to the point. since to be blunt, if you use their logo, it will not matter if you took it from them or recreated it yourself. but in this case i'm not going to assume anything besides "every image is completely your own, all work is original in creation, and your skin is in every meaning of the word is legitimate fan-art."

the problem is that in copyright, that's all within right of what is allowed, but in trademark's concern, every time their logo or other artifacts of trademark use are present, whether you took theirs, recreated it, or just make it similar enough to get the point across... disregarding the fan-art defense altogether, regarding the logo, if it clearly ties the identity of the two together, if they have a problem with it, you have no choice but to play ball their way. (saying play ball was for this example very lame i know )

fair use, is different between copyright and trademark, but both are existent in regards to the 1st amendment.

trademark is much more clear cut on what they can say represents a problem. in short, they for the most part don't even have to have a "problem" other than that you used it. if they just do not want you using their trademarks in any sort of publication excluding fair use (fair use for example using the 49'ers as a comparative description such as saying the color scheme is inspired by yadda yadda) you're left with really no choice but to remove it if they ask. it's because of the things trademark protect, but aside from all the others, you're simply providing work that is representing of their identity, in this case there would be nothing to argue in your own defense since you are very clearly using the 49'ers logo, even if you were to very blatantly list it is as being "unofficial". now work "based on" is an entirely different situation, but a visual representation as an example is a must before i could really state my own opinions of "is it pushing things too far to even be considered as a use of someone's trademark". but obviously just color sceme cannot be infringement, though colors are part of a trademark use and identity. look at mc donalds, shell gas, and kodak, all of them are yellow and red, but none of them is in anyway causing damages to the other, however taking a logo and just changing the color would not be enough to substantiate "my blue shell isn't infringing upon your yellow one", and making something similar in design might not cause problems, but matching the color could. obviously making a yellow and red windowblind might result in it being atrocious looking, but it's certainly not stepping on anyones toes just in that regard.

trademark use is dealing with, in a nutshell "identity", and what it protects is called intellectual property. a logo is probably the most simple form of this as well as the most popular form, and what you're questioning here, so i'll try to stick to that. but trademark concerns any misuse, unworthy cause of use, and protecting the overall the unique and defining characteristics to and of any identity. including a name(sony), word(crunchatize), phrase(what would you like on your tombstone?), logo(verizon wireless), symbol(apple), design(mc'donalds' arches), image(party hat), or a combination of these elements(brand), and other elements which do not definitively fall under these categories.

in situations where "the use" of an existing trademark is not the case, but similarities in identity is, you have battles like when apple corps (a music based company) sued apple computer for trademark infringement. apple computer actually surprisingly lost that case, and part of the settlement required apple computer to stay out of the music business. they even sued them a second time merely because apple's personal computers were able to play music files. how asinine is that? and it sounds unbelievable, but apple computer actually lost that case too and had to pay another hefty settlement fee. naturally i'm sure anyone that read that would then immediately think "oh shi~ then what about ipod and itunes?" yes indeed, apple corps was out for blood once again when these iproducts came out, and apple computer was again most certainly sued by apple corps. the outcome of this dispute however, not only gave apple computer, more popularly known now as apple inc. express rights to continue in the music industry, but also gave apple inc. all trademark rights related to anything and everything "apple", though in the settlement were also forced to license trademark rights to apple corps. a case like this not only shows the range of what people can identify as "infringement" but how the outcome is not always the same.

another case that might be more familiar with people in current times is the WWF case. (world wildlife federation vs world wrestling federation) in this case it wasn't even the same words, imagery, or even presentation; the logo's were nothing close to similar except that the abbreviations of the two, which was the most common representation, conflicted and was argued to cause confusion, and then fought over who had more right to it. in order to continue in my cheesy lines like "play ball", the wildlife federation over the course of several years, was able to wrestle the rights to it away from its opponent in a long drawn out match.

but if you want to get a real idea as to just how far things can go. please take a look at this...

fig. a

also before we get into it, i'd just like to point out how the logo you'll find in figure a... (lol) is a prime example of how fair use works. me needing an example to clarify something or compare a point, allows me to use this image here without concern for anything aside from whether or not indirect or subliminal advertising is allowed on wincustomize. i assure you this isn't the case so if you suddenly find yourself thirsty, i am in no way responsible and deny any allegations.

it's very likely you're thinking i'm going to point out the logo as a whole, or maybe you think i'm going to point out the colors or the typeface it was made with? i'm not. perhaps you looked past this graphic itself and think that i'm going to say that the contour bottle of theirs you see so much is also a trademark? if that's the case, wrong again, though it is also trademarked.

underneath the words, you will see a very simple graphic. this is called the "dynamic ribbon device" as it is described in coca-cola's registered trademarks, and it has seen many different designs over the years of its existence. this... this is how far trademark can regulate, this is perhaps the very pinnacle of examples. that not only is the exact design it appears in under protection, but the very concept. with such a thing being considered a trademark, any time in terms of "identity", that some swooshy looking line or lines exists in it's make-up, especially in the case of underlining it, coca-cola could likely have their ass for it. i agree with a lot of things, and though it's perhaps not my place to say it, and while saying it won't make any difference anyway, i find this is to be going too far. perhaps even far enough as to be able to trademark a triangle in every possible shape in angle. despite such "subjective" feelings or concerns, the point is that you are able to see the extent and context of what trademark use can mean. oh and before anyone asks, i have no idea if coca-cola ever found anyone to be infringing upon their "dynamic ribbon device" or filed any claims.

but in the case they ever found something to be an infringement of their "dynamic ribbon device" (don't you just love that name?) it is of course required such a case be made and proved relevant within a court, a court that may or may not agree to their claims, due to the nature of what they're trying to prove. your situation is of course not even close to the same, not that i'm suggesting you'd ever end up in court from making a windowblind lol.

also on a side note, parodies are again indisputable and give free reign. take something like a video game or movie for example, many times companies will pay, endorse, or sponsor their product to be in a work. sometimes it works the other way around and the movie or game producer might pay them what they hope to be a small amount of money for the right to allow its use, especially in the case that the authenticity of their work is going to be a factor to them. in the case the product manufacturer wants more money than they're willing to pay, that they simply say "no", or the people making a game or movie didn't care to use the real thing in the first place, that's when you'll see things like vending machines in your movies and games that look basically identical to coca-cola's, but instead say something like choco-cola or fizzy pop.

think about fan-sites for example as well. many times fan-sites are even encouraged and endorsed officially. but in the case that they are, you're going to most likely see a download package containing a list of rules that must be followed, as well as a series of images and other items. more than likely they'll require you to make use of their logo and some amount of text including disclaimers all of which they provide, with very specific guidelines on how to go about using it.

our case is much more simple than all of the above though. and in the case you were ever sued for something like this or similar to it, if your use of someone's logo, be it as your own or in representation of them, the case of the court would once again be in question of things "unclear" that people may or may not agree on. namely to prove how much damages party "a" received do to party "b's" actions, if any. but what makes things so simple here, and deals with only things concrete and without room for any argument, even on the degree of scale, is that the logo you would be using belongs to another party, represents their identity, and that you have been given no right to it in any way at all. there's absolutely nothing that can attribute to any other factor, and all it takes is their disapproval of using it in the manner that you have, which would be outside of fair rights, to have action taken or more simply put, be removed from circulation or distribution.

free speech "fair use" would allow you to actively show your work to others as much as you like such as in a screen shot, or use it yourself, but coming back to the similarity of copyright in what constitutes infringement... making distribution available of products or materials, that can be considered misrepresenting to or by the source, (aka anything they don't endorse) it is within their unquestionable rights to say "i/we want it removed".

now as jafo, many of my professors, and quite a few of my haphazard readers have pointed out to me many times over the years... i have a habit of saying things that can perhaps more eloquently be stated in less words. so in my conclusion i'll use that approach.

in light of "would it be fine that i make a 49'ers skin"... there is no question that what you would be doing is fan-art. there is no question what you would be doing is acceptable in nature regarding copyright. there is no question that until something has been done, no one can say with any adamant knowledge they would either agree or disapprove with the outcome or any side effects of it being released. there is however also no question regardless of right or wrong, good or bad, that you would be using trademarked property that doesn't belong to you in a way that is not specifically covered by fair use. and upon releasing it in any fashion, you then put yourself in a position where you no longer have total control, freedom, or can ignore what outcomes may occur from those actions. while there's always a case scenario where someone could change their opinion depending circumstances or how you used their property, and that there's always the possibility someone on here might pass it through moderation, while another might deny it...(it's officially "new paragraph time")

the situation is that in the past, certain entities have made it very clear time and again that they're going to complain and demand removal of any work that pertains to them, or any of their legal properties. among those that i'm aware of have often been sports related work, be it nba, nascar, or anything else. though whether or not it was the particular divisions logo or an individual team that was under dispute i do not know. apple as well has labeled complaints of their properties showing up entirely too much on here. but in terms of will it be approved and passed through moderation is pretty much reliant on whether or not the person in control of that expects it's worth the chance that it may not cause any negative reaction in this case (or perhaps is unaware of what they could expect), or if based on what they know find that it's best to just avoid another encounter where it will almost without question do nothing but piss off the same people, and be required that it is removed. especially if the case were to be something along the nature of... after the first run through of it, that the nba or whoever made it very clear that none of their trademark properties or subsidiaries are to ever have work that includes those properties released on here, and if they are, it will be because they have officially had it produced and released themselves, or else i'll eat your party hat. after such a statement has been made and and their standpoint has been recognized, doing it a second time is not so easy to simply pass off. i have no idea if that was ever said, in fact i doubt they did since there are laws that prevent trademark owners from making wrongful, baseless, or even idle threats, which are in place to keep intimidation and harassment out of the picture. if the nba's suits were to call up and say they'll eat frogboy's party hat if he doesn't remove a skin that bothers them within 10 business days, and after 11 days go by they haven't eaten his party hat, or if they had no basis for making such a claim in the first place (fair use or not their concern/jurisdiction), frogboy is able to pursue legal action against them. so given such knowledge, while people may not be so inclined to allow such activities that they believe to cause infringement upon them, will certainly be expected to be very careful in exactly what they lay claim, but most people are sensible enough to handle this sort of situation respectfully and treat it delicately. most...

such as that being the case with making threats, it is much more likely that instead of saying "screw this crap frogfool! u fix it now or imma eat ur party hat!", that it will in series of complex and abstract legal terms be worded in a way that would suggest "i feel like i've been mistreated as a person, i believe you can understand my misfortune and have the power and goodwill to fix what has been done, i am pursuing action against this, but if a remedy to the situation is not found, i think... i think i'm going to cry". not only is this done because the threat and insinuation itself is less extreme, questionable, or likely to come back down on them, but it is a more respectable fashion to address people in, professional, but in the sense of legalities it is generally accepted that invoking sympathy from anyone and everyone possible is always helpful to your case.

oh and as it just crossed my mind, while i believe nothing more than permission is all you need for non-profit situations, in the case you are going to be using and representing stuff you don't own for profit, i do believe licensing is required. just a side note.

but the possibility of such a circumstance happening in any way is likely to what is being taken under consideration. but depending "who" told you it would be fine to make a 49'ers skin with their logo, then such a scenario has probably never occurred, and is likely within bounds of what is known to be acceptable, at least within the current time frame of them saying it, which has after all, been a few years back.

i'm aware of the fact that i'm treating this entire scenario as to why you might not be allowed to do this, rather than the simple fact that what i said regarding sports related items conflicted with what you were told. i'm certainly not trying to insinuate it to be wrong or that you can't, my original statement is simply in regards of how common the scenario seems to play out that way.

i will say this however, and i don't direct this to you or anyone in particular. it is the responsibility of the individual just as much as it is wincustomize's or any other party to do their homework. a concrete conclusion can't necessarily always be reached by just looking around, but denial of responsibility can't always be achieved simply by claiming ignorance.

it looks like i still need to practice this whole "saying it in less words" thing.

Oh, yes....still....

The very real issue with wordy dissertations is the likelihood that your audience will dwindle in direct proportion to your effusive verbosity.

The longer it takes to clearly make your point the less people will remain to actually get it...

Those that DO stay the distance are often those who actually don't NEED to ....

my head hurts...

..or they've had enough practice with 'War & Peace'

Ya know, I found both of those posts very interesting and informative. Thanks horizon.

no arguments here. most people wouldn't have any incentive to read it due to size and subject alone if not for some belief it would hold merit in doing so, such as someone stating it was worth the read, or assuming i might write something worth reading.

truthfully, i usually rely almost entirely on hope, the reader will see that in the way i elaborate to this degree is a good quality rather than a downside, and that the reader will find it to be written in a way that will maintain interest beginning to end, rather than end up just the mess of boring words that it probably looks like at first glance.

saying that in less words, though still wordy-words...

i have insubstantial means for validating the fact i don't write in what is widely accepted as the most effective manner. but i'm happy when it somehow works out~

one of my professors told me he could never figure out if he thought my elaborations came more from the fact i was simply trying to prove something, or if i was writing as if i had to prove "i had something to prove".

my only defense to him was that he wore home-made moccasins with a black suit in public each day.

anyway, i'm happy if anyone found anything useful or entertaining from it.

After going though all that I don't need a lobotomy anymore - my last brain cell just collapsed by itself

Hum... what should we say???.....