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."
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Marketing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Another misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
The CC license now allows non-commercial derived works.
Copyright by default (Score:2, Informative)
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 fact I release a limited portion of my rights to this work doesn't mean I release all of them - that's how copyright works. That's how GPL works.
That's why it's called the GNU General Public License, and not the public domain.
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.
And so it begins (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Copyright on Prior Art (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And so it begins (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright is implict
Correct.
And Linspire was wrong. But the way that this story is being presented is dishonest.
Linspire ignored the implicit copyright on material that was being freely offered for download by the owner (stupid and wrong)
They did not ignore any explicit statement by the IP owner because the CC license was added after the (stupid and wrong) usage by Linspire.
Linspire deserves a dope-slap (and accomodation of the artist's wishes from this point on) for this one, not to have their pants sued off
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..)
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:1, Informative)
Uh huh. He may very well not have offered a license prior to applying the CC license to his work. I'll try to make it simple for you. US Copyright law says that if you make it, it is yours. This means that nobody else has any right to use it.
People only get the right to use the stuff that you've created if you explcitly [reference.com] say that they can.
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: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.
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:Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another misleading title (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL does not take away any rights, it in fact is a licence (contract) which gives you the right, subject to certain non-onerous conditions such as abstaining from restricting other people's rights, to do certain things, including copying and modifying, both of which would be illegal if the GPL was not applied. That is why, if the GPL were to be declared invalid, it would not result in a certain Convicted Monopolist being able to use ex-GPL code as part of his latest buggy OS, it would simply result in the situation where common copyright law prevented any copying until a new license was devised and applied.
IANAL, which is probably why I find it simple and logical.
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 copyrights; he won't even license the images for merchandising. Some information here [wikipedia.org].
Re:"Small" misuse? Maybe not to the artist... (Score:1, Informative)
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!
Response from Lindows (Score:2, Informative)
Let me provide some facts. In a flash tutorial hosted at Linspire.com there is a chapter which talks about Linux in which we used 3 background images from the Kde-look site by the author Mark Klown [dugnet.com]. Lindows downloaded these images from Kde-look [kde-look.org] (coincidentally - a website which Lindows financially sponsors - that doesn't affect the licensing issue). There is no creative common license indicator on the web pages that host these images.
From the email trail someone named "Jim" alerted Mark to the free flash tutorial on April 20th. Mark changed the license on his own website for the images in question to a Creative Commons license on April 25th. Then someone created a website accusing Linspire of violating the Creative Commons license and "stealing" the images. After which Slashdot prints a headline saying that Lindows is accused of violating the Creative Commons license.
Mark never contacted us saying that he had changed his license. He never contacted us saying he did not like the way the images were used. I wished he would have because this whole soap opera would have been avoided. I did send Mark email once I read the Slashdot story to get his input which is when he told me that he just recently changed the license on his website. He said he was going to put notification on his website about our situation.
It's disappointing to me because Slashdot runs this controversial headline then thousands of people read it and believe it. I think you should run the correction in the same place that you ran the original story. How about another story saying how easy it is to head-fake slashdot editors with a webpage and an email?
-- MR