Linspire Accused Of Misusing Creative Commons Art 534
SuperDuG writes "Seems that intellectual property and copyright laws are something that Linspire still doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of. Their flash intro has with it some popular Linux images made by a rather talented artist. An email to Klowner was the first notice he ever got about the images being hijacked, not once has Linspire requested permission to use these images in their ad campaign. They seem pretty similar to me, you be the judge."
Linspire are Lassholes (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:2, Interesting)
"Small" misuse? Maybe not to the artist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, depending on how much the artist depends on art for his income, I'm not sure that it could be much worse. I use a great deal of commercial art in my work, and I think most of the people I contract with for artwork sell to me because they need to pay the rent (or enjoy RAII-approved CD now and then...). There is no excuse for a sizable commercial entity like Lindspire to be misusing other peoples work in even a small way (and, really, a flash intro on your flagship web site is not a small misuse).
Re:"Small" misuse? Maybe not to the artist... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the guy's page is down, can anyone tell me what his copyright notice said? If it said "these images are free to anyone who wants to use them for any purpose" and they used them, then so be it. But I'm quite curious as to the actual terms. Also, it's always good to have a copyright notice watermarked in the picture. It doesn't have to b
Re:"Small" misuse? Maybe not to the artist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that really doesn't make sense. If the Berne Convention makes copyright notices unnecessary, then it should be assumed that any image you find is copyrighted unless other notice is given. I don't think you can use cluelessness as a defence.
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:4, Interesting)
If they have such a cavalier attitude towards ownership of something visible, what might they have done with something not quite as obvious?
Honestly, it could have been much better, too.
Forest through the trees (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:4, Informative)
Umm... the artist in question did exactly that. These images are free for non-commercial usage (Creative Commons License.) The artist requires permission for non-commercial useage - if you're using his work to make a buck, you should share part of that buck.
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:3, Insightful)
If Linux or *BSD had been licensed on such terms, they would have languished in obscurity.
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another shining example of the "all information should be free, except for the stuff that I think I might make a buck off of" mindset. But how much do you want to bet that Linspire would start shrieking bloody murder if someone infringed on *their* hard work. Someone should start ripping off their designs (they *did* do some work on their own, right?) just to see what they'd do. Bastards...
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:2)
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevermind.
(Dammit! So much for picking up a cheap +5 Insightful...)
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:3, Insightful)
I think everyone can acknowledge right now that we'd be better off without them, right?
Absolutely not. They sponsor many websites and open source projects [linspire.com].
If you want to throw away the things that they've contributed to the Linux kernel, WINE, KDE, Mozilla, etc, then fine, but don't presume to speak for the rest of us.
Re:Linspire are Lassholes (Score:5, Informative)
You mean contributed to WINE, KDE and Mozilla? It's all there on the page I linked to. If you are having trouble reading, I'll quote:
That looks like pretty substantial contribution to me. Yeah, they must really be assholes to give us all that!
Re:lassholes?? Maybe Not! (Score:3, Interesting)
ananicon writes (this is further down in the replies):
This is extremely interesting on many levels since the artist changed the licensing terms for his art 2.5 business days ago. What were the licensing terms before then? The artist doesn't say, and neither does his web site. I'm not saying the artist is right and Linspire is wrong, but these questions are entirely unanswered:
1. What were the pre-4/24
Not just the one flash, either. (Score:2, Interesting)
I also see what I recognize as a stock Associated Press photo of Bill Gates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the other photos were borrowed without credit (or payment) as well.
Re:Not just the one flash, either. (Score:2, Interesting)
Side note, is it just me or has this shading technique been over used. I'm starting to see this stuff on cereal boxes.
Re:Not just the one flash, either. (Score:4, Interesting)
Lindows should promptly compensate this gentleman. I think $500 would do it.
Re:Not just the one flash, either. (Score:3, Interesting)
they seem to have purloined the song as well. [brave.com] it might be in the public domain, however. or maybe they paid for it?
anyway, they don't seem to mind taking stuff and not acknowledging where they got it from.
Re:Not just the one flash, either. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless they just added that credit in the last hour...
He has them.... (Score:2)
If I were him I'd play my cards right and ask for a ridiculous amount of preferred stock in order for them to not get sued.
Re:He has them.... (Score:2)
Winning lawsuit != instant millionaire.
The most he would get is removal of the images, and if he was lucky, repayment of his attorney's fees.
Re:He has them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you say that? The have already used it. They will end up paying fair value for it, plus any lawyer fees.
I get the impression from your comments that you think this is a minor infraction. I take it you are not a commercial artist?
Re:He has them.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you say that? The have already used it. They will end up paying fair value for it, plus any lawyer fees.
It's all about damages. This artist has no reputation to damage. You seem to think that Joe Blow's art getting used is the same as Big Name Artist's art getting used. Sorry, it's not the same.
I get the impression from your comments that you think this is a minor infraction.
As a matter of fact, it is.
I take it you are not a commercial artist?
No, but I work with a real commercial artist. Very few artists make a lot of money from their art. Sorry, but this guy is not Wyeth. His art is worth about $100, and that's if I want to buy an original using traditional mediums
Re:He has them.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, it is.
Why? Because he's not rich? That's a stunningly ignorant attitude. How do you expect someone to ever become 'big-name' if they can't afford to pay the bills because people ignore the copyright on their works? There is just so much wrong with that attitude I don't even know where to start.
You can't just twist around the meaning of fairness and say "this guy is more important, so it's not allowed, but this guy is less important, so who cares." The law must be applied equally. We're all equal. There cannot be some people who are "more equal" or the whole damn system implodes.
Copyright protects anyone and everyone who produces a creative work. If the judge decides that the "fair value" of his work is $100, fine. But he deserves absolutely every penny of that $100. Only the reparations scale with damages, his rights do not. As the previous poster said, "They will end up paying fair value for it, plus any lawyer fees."
Re:He has them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is applied equally. He can shut them down just like Big Name Artist. The difference is in what is actually damaged. This artist has no reputation to damage, therefore, he gets little compensation. As it should be. The
Re:He has them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
...which makes it a minor thing. The burden of proof is going to be on the artist to prove that his art was instrumental in creating income. Since that's particularly absurd in this case, I doubt that he has a big pile of money waiting for him.
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is generally a neutral thing. It's neither good nor bad.
Music is generally considered something people want to share and is good. The problem is how expensive and restrictive the music has been and worse, how the RIAA has chosen to go about enforcing the copyright. Instead of addressing people's concerns, they've decided to sue people and create technology which limits freedom.
But no one that I know is against artists getting compensated.
Here, we have someone who is giving his art away, but with the restiction that if you use it to make money- you have to negotiate something with him. A company has decided to use his work for just that purpose. So now people are upset.
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:5, Funny)
What's a hypocracy? A country run by hypocrites? ("hypocrats?") That seems not inappropriate...
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:4, Funny)
Close.... nutters in the music thing say "Copyright is... uh.. FLEXIBLE because.. I.. uh.. um... I don't want to pay the price that they ask, but I don't want to stop listening to their music... er.. no.. wait.. uh.. THE RIAA IS CHARGING TOO MUCH MONEY SO I'M HELPING TO DESTROY AN EVIL EMPIRE BY IGNORING COPYRIGHT LAW AND RIPPING OFF COPIES OF THEIR SONGS!!!!"
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:3, Insightful)
copyright is BAD when protecting music
No, DMCA is bad when protecting bogus copy protection mechanisms. :) I don't think anyone here would seriously argue with you about the validity of the musicians'/RIAA's copyright on their own music.
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:3, Insightful)
does he have a monopolistic hold of the airwaves and the mainstream?
does he go after people that use his art (not for profit..) and sue them?
does he lobby the US government in order to make unconstituional laws that protect their monopolistic position?
apples and oranges my friend
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is neither good nor bad, it is simply a legal way of protecting anything from illegal copying, for a very long, arguably far too long, period of time. Amongst other things, it makes a claim that you made that thing on that date, so that it can be enforced from a time period starting from then, or a different period from the date of you, the author's death. Copyright does not protect the GPL, it is enforceable as a licence agreement (i.e. a Contract) which you accept when you use the software, and has recently been upheld in a German court. (Copyright laws internationally make more or less teh same set of provisions, as they are based on the Berne convention, the US also being a signatory, so it would most probably also he upheld by a US court if someone such as Darl McBride was stupid enough to challenge it, as we may soon see....) With no GPL, the copyright would in fact prevent you from making copies (everything which is created is copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise, although it is best to make the satement), but the GPL, like all contracts, gives you some, in fact lots of, rights, in return from you accepting that you will not limit anyone else's righs as far as that piece of software is concerned.
The only way that copyright would support the GPL in any way is that the GPL is a document. It gives you rights to make verbatim copies, so no problem there, but copyright law would disallow making, for example, perverted versions of the GPL, containing a clause which assigned all rights to Sir Bill Gates, and passing the copies off as real.
BTW I have rerely if ever seen anyone here say that music should not be subject to copyright protection. It is fair that the artists should earn a living. What is usually debated is that most of us think that you should be free to play your DVD anywhere, on any equipment, so pernicious laws such as DECSS are very wrong indeed. Copying the DVD is an offence under copyright law, it does not need encryption to be enforceable, and why should someone with a room full of Linux computers have to buy a Windoze box or a DVD player, just to play the thing, which he has paid for? The music and cinema industries are very wrong on that point, the RIAA are clearly fascist, and the law is an ass.
Likewise if you own a piece of music, it might even be an old, delicate and valuable LP, you ought to be allowed to make a copy so you can enjoy it in the car, or on a portable player. Again the fascists say no, you can't, but you are not making a copy for anyone's use but yourself, and not depriving the artist of income. Hence the frequent debate about music, it is about not being able to make copies for legitimate use, or even for backup.
As to linux art, I have not seen the items in question, but if they were not put in the public domain, any use contrary to copyright law, or as allowed by a licence such as the GPL,is quite wrong.
IMHO most people here will want copyright to be applied fairly, sensibly and reasonably.
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is second only to my fear of the systematic failure of the 4th branch of the government, the press. Unfortunatly the risks have become systematic and the problems created by the overfunded movie industry have soure
And so it begins (Score:3, Informative)
Re:He has them.... (Score:2)
Anybody would be stupid to download some company's copywritten code or documentation and use it without some license attached. In fact I'd like to know who you think does this? Actually you say "IP" by which I presume you mean "Intellectual Property", since no such animal actually exists you
Linspire (Score:5, Funny)
Marketing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Aren't the images on kde-look public domain? Or is there a disclaimer that forbids this?
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Marketing... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is extremely interesting on many levels since the artist changed the licensing terms for his art 2.5 business days ago. What were the licensing terms before then? The artist doesn't say, and neither does his web site. I'm not saying the artist is right and Linspire is wrong,
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Prior to the addition of the CC license on Klowner's wallpaper site, there was no specific copyright, although standard international copyrights still hold.
And since (link on the article) the default with regard to copyright on works (art, or whatever) is that if there is no mention of something else things are copyrighted. It would stand to reason that if Linspire "borrowed" the art before the artist changed to the CC license, they were still breaking copyright laws, and so would anyone else who without the authors explicit permission copied the work in question.
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't the images on kde-look public domain?
Why would you think that? Images in a public place, e.g. the internet, or for a GPL project are not public domain by default. They're under whatever terms their creator wants them to be.
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Lintellectual Property (Score:5, Funny)
Lawsuits from both The Rolling Stones and Microsoft are pending.
Another misleading title (Score:2, Interesting)
So, the CC license wasn't applied when the flash demo was created, in fact it was a response t
Re:Another misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
The CC license now allows non-commercial derived works.
Re:Another misleading title (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonetheless, the story would be clearer and Lindows' actions would seem less distasteful if it explained that they took the images off a site with no explicit copyright statement and that the Creative Commons was only invoked afterwards.
Re:Another misleading title (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another misleading title (Score:3, Interesting)
An absent statement of public license policy equals "All Rights Reserved" under the law.
Copyright by default (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Another misleading title (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the Creative Commons licenses work the other way - they allow the artist to forfeit some of his rights. Unless explicitly stated, every content published on the Web is the exclusive property of the author. As such, Linspire would have to approach the author and ask for permission to use his work. The CC license limits the ownership of the author, and in some, clearly stated cases (in this case the use for non-commercial purposes) other may use the author's work without prior permission.
polite (Score:2, Funny)
The solution... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying they are right for taking, altering, and using the images without his permission. I, too, think they have violated the Creative Commons license. But I have seen cases where companies have appropriated images, information, and physical property from groups or organizations that they sponsor.
The companies believe they have paid for it with their sponsorship (wrongly, IMHO)
Bait and switch (Score:4, Interesting)
Changing the license afterwards like the author did in this case is also your right, but it is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.
FWIW, I've seen the same artwork in other Live CD's (Slax comes to mind) so Linspire aren't the only people who grabbed it.
Re:Bait and switch (Score:3, Insightful)
Previous to the recent application of license, WAS there a specific disclaimer that it was "free for all to use"? Or are you speculating that merely publishing an image on a website is an abandonment of rights of authorship?
Re:Bait and switch (Score:5, Insightful)
If your offer up your creative material with no copyright protection and state that it is free for all to use, why shouldn't Linspire (or for that matter Microsoft or SCO) feel free to use it?
Because if no specific license is offered, then basic copyright applies. This means you have no right to make derivatives, commercial or otherwise.
Prior to the addition of the CC license on Klowner's wallpaper site, there was no specific copyright, although standard international copyrights still hold.
Re:Bait and switch (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the web is inherently illegal except for public domain material. Fascinating theory.
Courts have ruled in other cases that incidental copies made as part of the normal use of a program do not violate copyright laws. It is hard to see that this is any different. You also ignore fair use. It is not illegal to tape a TV program so I can watch it at a different time, but it is illegal to make copies of the tape and sell them.
I have read a few court rulings (simply as an interested citizen), and judges do not seem to make hyper-technical interpretations of the law (such as claiming it is illegal to browse a copyrighted web page without an explicit license) when they defy common sense.
Re:Bait and switch (Score:3, Insightful)
I value efficiency and the longer Linux stays clean of the public's demand for features and virtual kisses from their OS the happier I'll be. It's either a testament
Disappointing, really (Score:3, Interesting)
Mousey (Score:5, Funny)
Come, let us all softly tremor with sorrow, for the one buttoned mouse has gotten the better of this poor soul.
Re:Mousey (Score:2)
The guy's got an easy life, I guess.
Re:Mousey (Score:2, Funny)
It got him all bamboozeled.
/.'ed (Score:2)
The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really respect that Lindows^WLinspire is doing what it can to give OSS an outlet to the non-/. public
That being said -- there is something about that organization that rubs me the Wrong Way
Another fact about this story that leaves me wondering -- the Klown website very sneakily says (paraphrased) as of 24 April is licensed under ... Well, inquiring minds want to know: PREVIOUS to 24 April, under which (if any) license was it released under?
Of course, I am sure I don't need to point out that under US Copyright law (assuming for the moment that the artist is producing his work in that country -- and Linspire is definitely based in the US ofA ), the mere production of the work attaches copyright to the creator of the work, and s/he is under no obligation whatsoever to delineate the ways in which it can be used by others.
This is important people: Whatever you write is copyright by definition. In absence of verbiage to the contrary (i.e. GPL, CC, BSD), nobody can usurp your product. Another question: Can someone who Is A Lawyer quote some caselaw on active-protection as applied to copyright? (I know how it applies to trademarks, but copyright != patent != trademark )
Re:The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not sneaky. He released his stuff under the CC effective April 24. Previous to that he granted permission on a case-by-case basis to folks who asked if they could use his work, and standard copyright protections applied.
(FYI--I know him; I'm not just pulling this out of my ass..)
Hmmm. Not only that... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really too bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, they goad Microsoft with the Lindows name (Hint: if Baba Wawa pronounces the names of both softwares in an identical fashion, you blew it) and then changed to a name that is Lame in everything but the name itself. And now this...
not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy who owns Lindows is a confirmed scammer. I really wish this company would just go away.
* cheesy, stupid names
* raping debian's bandwidth
* taking much, not giving back anything
* uninspired, copycat mentality
* loudmouth
* no attention to security (everyone runs as root)
Can anyone name anything good about these people?
Re:not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
These abound within the opensource community. GNU anyone? How about K-everything or G-everything? Gnometris... Same Gnome. My god, you can't really single out Linspire here.
* raping debian's bandwidth
How? They have their own Click'n Run Repository. If users choose to use a Debian repository that's their perogative. You know, just like every other Linux user. I guess if you buy Linspire you can't play with the other Linux kids?
* taking much, not giving back anything
Let's see, they fund kde-look.org they've written several opensource apps, they pay everaldo [everaldo.com]. Yup, those lazy bastards. Just remember, Michael Roberts may be an ass, but he has already contributed more to Linux than you ever will.
* uninspired, copycat mentality So? Ever used Evolution or Kontact? How about rhythmbox or juk? Lots of copycatting happens. And you know what? It's necessary. There really is sometimes a best way to do things. You can't innovate every day. I don't see you bitching that KDE and Gnome use the desktop analogy. That was invented a Xerox-PARC! That's old shit! It just works.
* loudmouth
You got me there.
* no attention to security (everyone runs as root)
And there.
So only 2/6 or your points were really valid. Nice work though. Have you considered getting job writing FUD for MS or some other major corporation?
Re:not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
A squatter is someone who buys a domain containing somebody else's trademark - who had the trademark on "mp3"? Hint: nobody.
Knee-Jerks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone here think critically?
Does all this Knee-Jerk, Anti-Lindows/Linspire trolling ever once take into account that as a corporation, Linspire/Lindows didn't say: "Hey! Let's go rip off as much stuff as possible, and not pay people for it..."
Can anyone consider the possibility that someone who made up that Flash Presentation used the material and didn't happen to mention they lifted it?
It happens all the time.
It doesn't require Linspire to be an evil company looking to rip people off, and make a buck off someone's work.
It just takes one person who isn't clear on copyrights, and assumed they could use that artwork without permission. They might not even have realized they were doing something wrong.
How many people do YOU know, who totally understand IP and Copyright laws?
I'm getting tired of the automatic Anti-Linspire sentiment expressed by most Linux people. Linspire has given back A LOT to the Linux community. They've donated big bucks to WINE, KDE, Reiser-FS, and other projects. Go check their website.
And if you read their financials in the item about their upcoming IPO, if they are making money... They've sure fooled everyone.
Re:Knee-Jerks... (Score:4, Funny)
New here, huh?
Re:Knee-Jerks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your reply is still in the domain of "Lindows, Inc. a corporation did something wrong and ripped off a 'little guy'."
So, that means you didn't read what I said.
I'd be sure that this issue will get settled to the two parties satisfaction.
Whether it will satisfy all the Anti-Lindows/Linspire people, we can pretty much predict the answer to that.
If you've never put 10 million dollars of your money on the line, to create an alternate consumer operating system to Windows. You just don't understand what L
ROTWTF!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we change ROTFLMAO and all similar expressions to SOAC(PIMU)SBAPC*?
Because I really don't believe that anyone actually sees a moderately funny item on the internet and promptly falls off their chair, only to proceed with the action of "Rolling on the Floor".
Actually, ROTFLMAO is a bit like eBay respondents writing "AAAAA++++++++" just because someone successfully shipped them a fucking product. If the package arrived and you weren't overcharged, then that's an A.
Save the AAAAA++++++++ for when they s
Difficult Position (Score:3, Interesting)
Michael Robertson is a strange creature, bucking the trend like Steve Jobs, but only in very, very bad ways. The funny thing is (funny in a really perverse kind of way), Jobs is generally the guy Linux zealots love to hate (he was the cool kid in school). Robertson is the Linux-popularising martyr for FOSS, the almost untouchable.
Back in the day, MP3.com was lauded as visionary, a chance for the music companies to make something of online distribution, and so on. When the RIAA poo-pooed this and went after MP3.com, he played the prima donna and we all boohooed together - Michael tried so hard, he really cared about us, he identified with us, he wanted to free intellectual property. He was on our side. When MP3.com died, defeat reverberated around the geek/FOSS world...
So then this thing Lindows appears on the horizon, with talk of full Windows application compatibility, something that was later dropped when the WINE [winehq.com] team realised what a prick Robertson was. When any other company [infiniumlabs.com] makes crazy claims like that, someone [hardocp.com] will get on the case. In this case, the Lindows team rewrote history [8m.com] to erase this little hiccup from their PR. There are murmurs on the Internet about how source is not posted and so on, but somehow Lindows carries on.
Then Robertson takes on Microsoft. Robertson is the Man again, the Good Guy fighting against every true geek's arch nemesis. When he loses, Microsoft are evil bastards beyond reproach (I am not suggesting that this isn't the case, but bear with me...).
I think perhaps this could be put a clearer way - ask yourself only "Is my enemy's enemy always my friend, no matter what?" Personally, my answer to that would be no, but I suppose YMMV. Put it this way, I have no desire to ally myself with a person whose sole motivation to free the world from the shackles of IP (which would of course undermine the GPL) serves only to allow him to continue to profit off the unpaid labour of others.
Robertson is not a visionary. He's the asshole who was never tough enough to beat all us Slashdot-reading geeks up, but never missed the opportunity to hurl abuse from just round the corner. And he strikes me as being from the same sort of management school as McBride - his ethics are about as loose.
iqu
kde look (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some questions to ask:
Where exactly did Linspire get the works from?
When they did get the works, what was the copyright notice?
I look at kde-look.org and there are no explicit copyright notices; yet the purpose of the system is to allow people to download and use backgrounds, suggesting an _implied _license that anyone who puts a background there is making it available for fairly unrestricted use. You like to argue this, but I am trained in Law and this is how it is intepreted. The "hairy" questions are always over "just what are the terms of this implied license", usually the courts have to argue about it.
Note that if you just put an image on your webpage, there is no implied license that you're allowing anyone to use it, so any copying other than the intended purpose of viewing and so on is infringement. However, when you put an image into a system that is _designed_ to allow people to download it, it can be said that you are agreeing to an implied license.
In fact, if you go to the kde-look and choose "Upload", you have to choose a license (GPL, LGPL, "Other", etc) for your work, but when you are a downloader, there is no display of the license. This is a problem that kde-look needs to fix.
It seems to me:
(a) the author (Klowner) and kde-look.org have a few issues to sort out regarding the proper clarification and visibibily of copyright licenses for their works;
(b) Linspire may be acting within the law, but we need to know more information;
In fact, in this case, kde-look could be liable: because if Klowner did apply the appropiate license on upload, but didn't display it for downloaders, yet Linspire relied in good faith upon an implied license, then in fact, neither Linspire or Klowner did anything wrong: the fault is with kde-look who negligently didn't indicate the proper rights for the work.
Re:kde look (Score:3, Informative)
It's nice of you to "think" that, but that's simply not the case now so has no real bearing on this situation. The courts would not make such a social policy in ruling upon the outcome as they only interpret statutory law. Only the legislature could make such a change by changing the statutory law.
Not using a notice was careless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the Lindows folks should have known better--but so should Klowner.
Just how hard is it to write "Copyright [year] by [so-and-so], all rights reserved?"
When in doubt, add a copyright notice. Whether or not it actually changes the legal situation, it definitely changes people's behavior. Even if you plan to grant permission to just about anyone for just about anything, putting a copyright notice on your work greatly increases the probability that people will ask.
Please define 'intellectual property'? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you meant the latter, there's no such thing as intellectual property laws. If you meant the former, then what do you mean by "intellectual property", and how is that different from copyright? After all, you did list them as two distinct things.
This has been your words-to-avoid [gnu.org] public service announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Side note on CC confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
However the problem is not entirely the fault of the artists. I went back to the creative commons site today, and it took me ten minutes to find the original simple page explaining [creativecommons.org] the different licences. Before that I went through their "Choose a licence" path it and they actually encourage people to mark the works on their websites vaguely as being under a creative commons licence. To get the terms of the specific license you must click on the link.
This is bad practice. People are used to the name of the license telling them roughly what you can do with the licence. GPL, BSD, Open Source, Shareware, Freeware, these all give you at least a rough idea of what you can do with the work. Therefore someone stumbing on the Creative Commons Licence for the first time would naturally extend what they know to think it is yet another licence. But it isn't - it is a collection of licences.
Consider the first time someone encounters a creative commons licence. Unsure of what it is suppose they actually do click the link on the bottom of the page and read the (very nice and clear) human readable creed. They will then think "okay that is what they creative commons licence allows" and never bother to click on any other link again, because they think they already know what the licence allows.
I do not think that creative commons concept is too confusing for people, but it is different, and the way it is being handled does nothing to indicate to people that it is different. At the very least people should display the applicable clause icons next to the creative commons link, so that people may notice that there is something different.
PS:
This does not directly apply to this case since prior to April 24th these had no licencing information, and after that the notice was clearly displayed, and in either case Lindows should have contacted the author to get permission. It is just a side discussion.
Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
- Where is the confirmation from the author that he didn't give permission? I see only one website which claims he doesn't
- Where is any kind of response from Lindows regarding this? Do they even know that it's copyrighted?
I'm all for protecting peoples rights, but I don't think we should go around making accusations until all the facts are in.Re:Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Ohhhhh! (Score:5, Funny)
SCO and Eolas should use this to their advantage.
I wish slashdot would just publish a schedule, "Ok, yea, MS, we'll like you on alternate Thursdays."
Get it (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright means all rights reserved. Publishers don't even publish "public comments" from usenet in their for-profit publications because they don't want the hassle of securing permission from all the copyright holders. The f
Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
If we went by that ideas, you'd be implying that every book to do with GPL/OSS things should be free and that the authors should make no profit...
Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL basically says 2 things: First people are free to modify or redistribute however they wish (they can even charge money). Secondly the GPL program must come with (or at least have freely availiable) the source code to the program.
The Creative Commons liscense is trying to do the same thing with artwork that the GPL has done for software. The difference is there really isn't a 'source code' for art other than the artist's head. So the stipulation is keep it out of commerical products unless you have a specific licsense to do so. Which really is the same effect the GPL has on software.
Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They took an image (no argument here - illegally), made minor changes to it and are now commercially distributing it. If the Creative Commons license was similar to the GPL, then as long as the source to the image (the flash presentation could be considered a compiled work) was available - this would be allowed. The Creative Commons is more restrictive than the GPL.
If find it interesting that a license like Troll Tech's is considered so terrible (when it is much like the Creative Commons), but everyone is so understanding about artists rights.
That's not what the GPL means (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's reasonable at all. If I'm a journalist, and I cover a free concert, does that mean I can't claim that time with my employer? Are my stories and photos public domain? In any other context, that doesn't make sense.
It's like the new Firefox logo. I don't get that either. Is it really proper to allow artists to make money off of GPLed code? It may very well be legal, but I don't think it's right.
Why not, anyone else is allowed to. You may have noticed Red Hat charges for GPL'd linux too. GPL doesn't necessarily mean free as in beer.
Re:That's not what the GPL means (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a little ridiculous to be mixing the licenses together like that. It creates confusion. If these artists want to play with the open source kids then they need to embrace it too.
Re:Rounded taps, so what? (Score:2)
Seems to me that they are looking for free publicity anyway possible, even if it means publicity as "the copycats".
Re:Ironic... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
^ notice the post date.. mid-2002
Lindows wasn't a sponsor at the time I'm quite sure, if my memory serves me right. Also the submission system on kde-look allows you specify a license, and at the time the wallpapers were posted, they didn't have that feature.
I think there is a troll here (Score:4, Insightful)
kde-look is appreciated and actively used by users of KDE for enhancing the look of their KDE desktop. Many theme writers and icon developers use it exclusively to post their KDE material.
It should also be made clear that a lot of the art of kde-look is given under a free license, not a none-commercial license.
Unless I see a post from the artist complaining about the use of his art, I'm going to consider this article a troll because of the weak tie-in to the Microsoft trademark dispute.
Re:Copyright on Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Copyright on Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Bill Watterson (creator of Calvin and Hobbes) threatened to sue the company that made those stickers, and the company has since changed the stickers to a different image which is apparently not considered derivative. Watterson is known to be very protective of his copyrigh
Re:Creative Commons Isn't Free (Score:4, Informative)
The creative commons creates a common set of licences that simplify things for the creator, distributer, and consumer. It also creates a single umbrella movement for encouraging more open licencing of works. It is a valuable work.
Re:Slashdot Selective Morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "*I*" do not profit by it, they do so they should share the profi.
Anyway I, and a lot of other people here, are not against copyright, just unreasonable copyright laws (excessively long terms, inadequate fair use provisions)