Slashdot Mirror
Linspire Accused Of Misusing Creative Commons Art
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."
I think everyone can acknowledge right now that we'd be better off without them, right?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
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.
by the balls!
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.
Get paid to code OSS
ALL RIGHTS RESERVER -> Some Rights Reserver -> ????
Well, now we know the seven last letters of Linspire are just there by accident and do not denote a particular skill of them.
It seems that Graphical Artists in any Marketing division seem to run into this problem all the time.
Aren't the images on kde-look public domain? Or is there a disclaimer that forbids this?
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Lawsuits from both The Rolling Stones and Microsoft are pending.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So, the CC license wasn't applied when the flash demo was created, in fact it was a response to the art appearing on the commercial site. It's clear the the material was previously being offered "free" to anyone who wanted to download it, without any mention of a copyright. but does that imply a right to use the materical by a business. If you offer items for download, but do not state your intentions, does this allow commerical vendors to make a profit out of your work. I think that now that he has applied the CC license, future uses in presentations would be protected, but I am not sure of the offending one.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Klown is the real problem because he has copyrighted the Linux pengiun for his own personal use.
I understand that artists have got to eat too, but really...
I mean, I hate to sound heartless, but the artist drew pictures advocating a completely free and open source OS. It would just therefore stand to reason that his artwork would be free as well.
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.
Perhaps they thought that it was open source.
GPL Artistic License!
But the host of the demo sounds so polite. That's got to count for something. right?
come on, the giggling penguin on the trampoline? golden.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I bet SCO must be kicking themselves for not going after Linspire instead of.. well, just about everyone else.
SCO would have had a field day considering Linspires shameless rip-offs (first "Lindows", then Apple's software _and_ web-site, and now this).
Had they gone after Linspire, there might actually have been people believing their ludicrous claims considering Linspires track-record..
Just compare: this with this
"Limited Bandwidth"
(From the email, about the wallpaper site!) Good job Slashdot. Poor some salt in this guy's wounds.
Lindows just proved the M$ lawsuit was justified. They shot theirselves in the foot. As a matter of fact, Lindows is very bad about giving credit to the original authors of software too. The even rename some packaged apps to make them seem like it is their own...
I mean, Lindows oops.. I mean Linspire is a good, law abiding company that respects intellectual property rights. Oh, wait..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
is just to use art that nobody would want to copy anyways. OpenOffice.org figured this one out earlier this week.
They let you reserve some rights while allowing other people some use. For example, these wallpapers (or the one I looked at), allowed non-commercial usage if credit was given. This is a commercial usage with no credit given. Lin* is violating the terms of usage.
If Linspire believes they have rights to Mark's images because they sponsor www.kde-look.org where his images are available as backgrounds?
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)
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
That the site kde-look.org is sponsored by Lindows.com... I don't see any copyright, license info on kde-look .org, would posting your stuff on that site, imply your making it public domain?
In the US, *everything* is copyrighted by default. This means that unless there is explicit permission given (in the form of a license, or a grant of rights), copyright must be assumed. In other words, the fact that it was on a web page means nothing, the fact that there was a 'download' link means nothing, the fact that there was no mention of copyright means nothing - in the absence of a license or grant of rights, copyright law holds that you cannot use the work without written permission of the author.
This title is misleading because the artwork had no CC license when originally posted. 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?
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.
Okay, Linspire = assholes. However, they are NOT breaking copyright. Think Calvin & Hobbes. These images DID NOT previously exist as exact duplicates. Image copyright protects EXACT duplication, and this did not happen. Nothing illegal here, just another company stealing ideas from someone else.
It's a shame that this company who is supposed to be bringing the spotlight to desktop linux, is bringing it in such a way. First, we had the Microsoft mockeries on the website, and now blatant stealing of someone else's work. The sad thing, is that there are those out there who will start to think that open source software is about stealing other's source, and that that would be the only reason to keep it open. Sad, but probably true. It's companys like these that we don't need bringing a bad name to linux. I think it is time for the Lindash/Lindows/Linspire, whatever people to mature up a little bit.
while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
I'd post a URL to the demo but the Mac I'm on has inadequate mousing abilities.
Come, let us all softly tremor with sorrow, for the one buttoned mouse has gotten the better of this poor soul.
Just compare: this [linspire.com] with this [apple.com]
Pfft. So they both have lit, rounded tabs. Who owns the patent on that idea?
copyright is GOOD when protecting the GPL
copyright is BAD when protecting music
copyright is GOOD when protecting Linux art
That about right?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
However, it is nothing like theft if someone copies a Britney Spears MP3 and presents it for download as a Britney Spears MP3. No mispresentation or misappropriation of work as ones own is done.
He's going to need some of Mr Robertson's cash to pay his overage bills... It's slashdotted already.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Since when is it flamebait to ask people to not use hyperbole and dishonesty to try and exaggerate their case?
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.
On the author's website (not the KDE look hosting of them), they are licensed using CC. For example, see Sky Bubble Tux, which is licensed using CC for Attribution Non-Commercial. Now, perhaps Lin* got this from somewhere else, but they should've search more thorougly for the author and any copyright terms before they just started using them in a commercial app. LiveCD's that are non-commercial can use it, if they give the author credit.
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 )
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Anyone who says that copyright infringment of any kind is "Theft" is lying through their teeth.
This song is just 40 characters long. Ignore it if you want.
But they're still using "LindowsOS" in much of the presentation. Good grief.
Proverbs 21:19
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).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
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...
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Copyright is implict - he doesn't have to put a license up to be covered. His work == his copyright. Personal use of it on someone's desktop can fall under fair-use, but incorporating it into your product's main sales speel does not. Publishing a license for it would have helped clarify the issue of course.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I mean, if you really squint your eyes and use your imagination, maybe they sorta, kinda, resemble each other. But not really. I think this is just one of those "Michael Jackson stole three notes from me and made a hit song" complaints.
As I have downloaded mp3:s illeagally from net, I can only sympathize with Linspire folks. Copyright Law truly sucks. It's very artificial and unatural.
Not only is kde-look sponsored by Linspire (they pay a large chunk of the bandwidth), I distinctly remember when kde-look was going to the toilet because they couldn't afford their bandwidth. They were saved by the sponsorship of Linspire.
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.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
If a spammer were to start a linux distro, it would be a lot like Linspire.
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?
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.
So assuming that the "free for all to use" license applied to the images previously, does this mean that they cannot replublish a revised "Linspire" presentation with those now CC linsences images?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I'm not going to waste my time worrying about the CCL being abused by Linspire or anyone else. Not that it isn't illegal or maybe even immoral, it's just that I can't make myself give a rats ass. Creative Commons is a wart riding on the ass of open source.
CCL isn't free. It just wishes it was.
Unfortunately, this practice is fairly commmon.
I was at Best Buy the other day, and at their little pavillion/kiosk thingy in the back (by the Geek Squad station), I noticed a poster-sized picture of this strange guy making the "OK" sign around his eye.
I thought...where the hell have I seen that before?
Then it dawned on me: Mailinator....here's the pic in question
From the process flow as I've experienced it over the past few years, the graphic artists tend to focus on "make it good" and "make it engaging" - which is fine since they are graphic artists and not lawyers. Their output goes to whatever client-party is holding the checkbook. The checkbook-holders who determine whether or not the artists have done their job may not themselves be conscious of legal issues pertaining to marketing materials. They might simply pound their fists on the table and exclaim, "wow! That looks great! I love it! Let's go live!".
It is either the client's responsibility or the responsibility of the uppers at the design/technology firm to at some point pass it onto legal folks to ensure that the material contained within does not violate any copyright/usage restrictions. Of course, this isn't an excuse for artists to go pillaging stock photography and materials belonging to others, but it does signify a need (especially in high-profile projects) for someone to explicitly take trademarks and such into consideration, and not expect the designers themselves to be completely responsible.
Anyone think it's funny that one of the images touting Linspire as having 25% market share shows four penguins, one of which is falling off a bubble. Seems like 25% is getting ready to take a dive.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
They grabbed the images that weren't at the time coverd by the CCL. The law still applies. That's what it's there for. I think Lin(spire/dos) will have a hard time if they keep going like this, I mean, they don't come across as very professional. I certainly wouldn't want to do business with them, and I wouldn't touch their stock with a ten foot pole...
Too bad these people get so much attention...
here we go: MIRROR
of anyone or anything except people who don't see the world exactly as you do. Why are you all so bitter and full of hatred?
Copyright infringement is ok if *I* do it, but not some company.
This guy should sue their pants off, but when the RIAA does it, they are evil.
The GPL is the only license that should be used, but these images have severe restrictions, but that's ok, because stopping commercial use is somehow more noble. I wonder when that gets added to the GPL.
We are all for compensating the artists being screwed by the RIAA, but since we don't know how to do that, we just download it for free, ensuring that the artist will receive no money, instead of the percentage they would have gotten had you purchased the CD.
I actually find Slashdot to be more of a comedy site at this point.
Another day, another example of the cavalier attitude that Robertson has regarding IP, the community, everything...
:s
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 team realised what a prick Robertson was. When any other company makes crazy claims like that, someone will get on the case. In this case, the Lindows team rewrote history 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
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.
Heh...I figure i'm pretty well qualified to speak on this subject, so, here goes.
Running Propaganda for the past 6 years has taught me a few important lessons when it comes to human nature. The most important (and relevant) one here is, nobody walks all over you without your permission. Simply put, if you spread your cheeks and hang a neon sign on your ass, it's just a matter of time before you hear someone behind you unzipping their fly.
People are essentially vultures. They look for a free meal wherever they find it. When they do, they converge on it, and take everything they can without thinking twice about it... Which isn't really bad, when you think about it -- If you're enough of a sucker to give your stuff away in the first place, there's a reasonable assumption on behalf of the vultures that you know what you're doing. Meanwhile, you lose your identity, piece by piece. You become less of a person, and more of a faceless generator set in place to make other people happy.
It's amazing how people even have to be reminded of this idea -- If you don't want people using your shit, don't give it to them for free!
I've got something like 14,000 images out there floating around. I see them pop up all the time.. screenshots, themes, hell even commercials on TV occasionally. It doesn't bother me. Why? Because I consciously gave them away. By giving stuff away for so many years, I effectively gave up my right to bitch about it. If you set a plate full of brownies in the middle of a room full of 5th graders, what the hell do you expect is gonna happen to them? They'll get wrapped in plastic wrap stored in a refrigerator? Hell no. It turns into a free-for-all, no pun intended. I hate to say it, but that's the truth..So pull your pants back up, and quit your "sensitive artist" crap. No one cares, and even if they did, you have no ground to stand on.
Simple as that.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
For farts n hahas
It's a good thing he notified his friend of this violation, but anyone who uses that phrase needs a reality check.
Un-news
...although, under present copyright law, everything is "born copyrighted" whether there is any notice or not--to put up material on a public website without a copyright notice, as was apparently done before adopting the Creative Commons license, seems to me to be inviting infringement.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
That is a good question you raise.
There is no reason whatsoever for making a distinction between artistic content and programmed content when it comes to the rights of others to create derived works.
If anything, the original author of this artwork should be criticized for placing restrictions on its use (if he indeed has, as others have alleged), rather than making it Open Content.
Those who criticize others should be consistent. If one supports proprietary artwork rather than open, then one should also support proprietary versus open software too, as the same arguments apply. Both are subject to modification into a derived work.
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 public service announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Nope, no sig
Does it look like Linspire kinda "borrowed" the Verizon logo, and flipped it upside down and moved it to the other side of the company name text?
This is an important topic that should be (but never will) addressed in cases like the Linspire situation. Violate Linux rights = Evil. Violate RIAA rights = Good. ???
I myself have noticed alot of confusion concerning the usage of the creative commons licences. The original idea seemed simple to me - pick which clauses you want and list them. They even provided simple icons to help mark what your licence allows. But apparently alot of people just don't get it. I don't know how many sites I have seen that simply state that thier works are available under a creative commons license, without bothering to mention which one.
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 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.
Hehe, this guy is funny. First, he puts pictures on kde-look.org and then bitches that HIS work ends up on other people's websites. He should have signed all of his wallpapers and drawings. Then if someone used his art and removed the signature, he would have a strong case.p any_fi le/277890.stm
However, Lindows should still credit him somewhere on the site or hire him to redo the demo to make it look more professional.
The following is another David vs Goliath type of case. Follow link for the full story of Microsoft vs Lemon Dog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_com
best part:
'Microsoft denied in its defence that the dogs were similar, and noted that Rocky had a tail. Furthermore, Microsoft claimed that Rocky had a predecessor called Rover, who pre-dated Lemon Dog, in a product called Bob.'
Hehe, if I were Bill, I would rather fork over $ than admit that there was a MS product called BOB.
and all of there pictures would look likeTHIS
> I think everyone can acknowledge right now that we'd be better off without them, right?
NO.
My *_personal_* opinion is this: they are clumsy. But they are on our side. Think Jar Jar here.
And they support KDE. This puts them very high on my scale.
Please educate them, don't bash them.
It also means you have no right to download it seeing as downloading a file technically copies it (and yes, that technicality matters until a court rules otherwise).
Assuming the server you're downloading from has the right to publish, anyway. When you download something from the web and stream it, you're doing the same thing with your computer and the website that people regularly do with their television and cable company: you request that the publisher send you something, they do, and your electronics displays the result. When you download something from the web and save or cache a local copy, you're doing the same thing with your computer and the website that courts have said is okay to do with VCRs: you're being legitimately sent copyrighted material, and you're saving it to look at again later, and you should be legally in the clear as long as you don't redistribute any of these copies to others.
Now, IANAL, and we've got lots of nice new "digital is different somehow!" laws which may apply, but I'd like to see which ones before I become scared to visit a URL.
It's just plain sloppy to put a file up for download with no license.
Yes, it is, and in the past letting your creations fly about without attached copyright or licensing information (like AT&T did with Unix) was a good way to lose your copyright protection. Today, though, you can pretty much expect copyright restrictions to apply unless the publisher explicitly says otherwise and expect fair use (including time shifting) exceptions to apply unless the consumer explicitly agrees to waive them.
The only grey area I've seen with downloading is when you download from someone who doesn't have the legal right to redistribute copies of what they send you. I'd certainly expect this to be illegal (at least if you request the download with foreknowledge that the uploader will have to violate a copyright in order to satisfy your request), but I can't find which clause in copyright law would make it illegal. So far even the RIAA has only been filing suit against uploaders and not downloaders, so perhaps their lawyers can't find such a clause either, (or perhaps they're just playing it safe by trying to go after the most blatant infringers first).
An ideal form of governmentt in which horses rule.
- 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.Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Ohhhh, it's Wednesday, 'Copyrights are good day.'
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."
I would have thought that they'd be smart and purchase a license to use Chilly Willy's likeness with their products. Can't be too expensive, and every time I see Chilly anywhere I'm filled with good will. Besides Balmer as a walrus might be ammusing.
It's a good, standardized licence that lets you go through the terms approximately *once*, then use any other work under the same licence without further ado.
The alternative would be "one licence fits all" (hint: it doesn't) or a separate licence/EULA for every piece of artwork. I'm sure you can get in just as many flamefests as BSD/GPL over which is truly free, Free and FREE, but at least you don't have to read a thousand look-a-like ones.
If you don't care about any other licence than your own favorite one, why should the users of any other licence care about yours? To paraphrase Martin Niemöller a little:
"In the software world they first pirated the Closed Source Software, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Closed Source Developer.
Then they came for the Creative Commons, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't using the Creative Commons licence
Then they came for the GPL code, and I didn't speak up because the GPL wasn't truly free.
Then they came for the BSD code, and I didn't speak up because it wasn't my BSD code.
Then they came for my code - and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Bob dole likes your style. Bob Dole, BOB DOLE!... bob dole"
and lets modify it a bit
"CNR likes easy life, CNR! CNR... cnr..."
Probably foisted it off has his/her own work and gladly took the kudos for it. Now they have some "S'plaining" to do. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting.
The Click'n'Run icon while downloading/installing software looks exactly like a green version of Apple's software update icon.
honestly... I have no idea what you guys are talking about.. those images look nothing alike! the hysteria!
in the bonds, ppka
So what. I made Icons that are all over the place, and I dont care. If he didn't have a CC license on it before, they were probably used then. Besides, Lindows sponsers the kde-look.org. He ought to be happy that they give him and others a place to display their work.
Also who is this guy that made the webpage? Is he speaking for the author? Where is the Authors response?
BTW: Did anyone contact Linspiredows a call before flipping out about it?
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
They've demonstrated that they do this by pushing the practical limits of other people's rights and touting the ensuing fight.
They found the limits of Microsoft's trademark protection in the threat of court action backed by Microsoft's clout.
What ever made you think that they would have any more respect for a CCL than a commercial copyright?
Next--blatant gpl violations.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The CNR icon is green with a running man in the middle.
The Software Update icon is a blue globe with arrows around it.
I'd post a URL to the demo but the Mac I'm on has inadequate mousing abilities. It is on the front page of www.linspire.com in plain view, though. -jared
A....mac...with "inadequate mousing abilities?"
I think I'll settle for a confused laughing.
Another Jew-bashing euronazi heard from again! So glad you could take some time out for vandalizing synagogues so you could join us!
"Turn off your fucking TV's!"
And burn your books too! Can't have outside ideas! You tell them!
"And most importantly: have the courage to take a critical look at the basis of Judeao-Christianity"
Anything in order to start feeding them into the ovens again. Fomenting hatred of people because of their religion will open the door to this.
I am copying this here because I don't think its fair to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts!!!!!
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 Creative Commons licensing terms? Did the artist change the terms after Linspire had already grabbed the art and used it? If so, it's pretty oily for an artist to change the licensing terms for their art *after the fact.* I'm not saying this happened, but to be blunt, there's no documentation either way.
2. By default, the user isn't obliged or required to notify the person whose art they're using as long as they abide by the CC license. Look it up and see for yourself on creativecommons.org.
3. The person posting this story says "not once has Linspire requested permission to use these images in their ad campaign." Uh, no shit Sherlock. If the artist's pre-4/24/04 license didn't forbid their use in a commercial medium, Linspire isn't required to get his permission - it's self-evident in the license.
Sorry, but until there are more details, the person posting this story may either be 100% right or 100% f*cked-in-the-head. For now, I'd hold off on crucifying Linspire until all the details are reported. So far, they haven't been...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yes.
They were the first to try to make a Linux distribution that was usable by ordinary computer users.
They invested significantly in promoting Linux as a viable alternative to Windows.
They were willing to take on Microsoft in the courts, for two years.
They were among the first to repackage Debian and demonstrate Debian's value as a meta-distribution.
They sponsored numerous projects and Linux-related web sites.
They pushed the concept of a one-click GUI-driven installation process that actually works.
They raised the standard for installers: the Lindows installer works extremely rapidly and well.
The business of running as root is out of date, this was done early on and has changed since.
Note that at the same time as it ran as root, it also installed a firewall by default.
What did they do wrong?
They were brash and aggressive. God knows we hate people who think they can do better than us.
They dared to _sell_ their distro. What, making money from other people's work? Surely the GPL forbids this? Actually, no...
They made the source code to their modified installer and tools available only to people who purchased the product. Again, outrageous? No, perfectly correct.
And they dared to compare themselves to Windows.
Michael Robertson is not a confirmed scammer, and your comment is basically flamebait. He is someone who invested wisely in mp3.com and put his profits into a good, if somewhat low-brow Linux business.
He deserves a lot more support from the Linux community.
But elitists just hate it, don't they, when the common person gets to join the club. Remember AOL? It's the same all over again.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I was going to give you one of my mod points for being the first Slashdotter to make me laugh out loud, but you're already at (5, funny) so you can just bask in the warm glow of my praise instead.
Did anyone else notice the Apple-software-update icon, but recolored green w/ a little sprinter in the circle used in the "Click-N-Run" demo area ? (CNR)
(it's right after they click the CNR button on the warehouse website and the file starts downloading)....
Thats pretty sketchy too.
So, the icon is a different color with a different design, and you think it looks the same.
The Apple icon is a blue globe.
The Lindows icon is a green running man.
The only thing they have in common is that they are both round.
Are you really that stupid?
Hey, is that from the discussion a few days ago about the laser that offers new insight?
I'm asking because I think I read it somewhere in there and was pissing myself off laughing.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Like all of the OSX and WinXP themes on kde-look.org, or Evolution's shameless copying of Outlook, and the list goes on. Linspire is just continuing the trend of copying set by the OSS/Linux community.
"Due"
"Diligence"
I deal with this all the time when someone in the company creates this gr00vy little presentation with artwork and/or audio clips and wants to use it in a public keynote or pop it up on the public website.
It doesn't take an understanding of IP and Copyright. All it takes is to contact the original author (or appropriate copyright holder) and ask permission. 5 minutes spent surfing around (or even Googling) would have provided enough information for the creator of that Flash piece to understand he/she had an easily-surmountable problem with regards to the images used.
It appears that even that small professional courtesy was overlooked in this case. That's bad.
And whether or not Linspire is actually making money is immaterial; they are a commercial entity using someone else's work without permission in pursuit of a commercial goal.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
are you guys saying that because this image is a .JPEG instead of a .ISO, it can't be open?
truth is, if you have artwork that you want to copyright, you should keep it off the web, where it is easily stolen, or include watermarks and a copyright notice.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"Think Jar Jar here." Is there anyone on this entire site who would choose to educate Jar Jar rather than bashing him?
Remember when Jar Jar gave away the whole ball game in Ep. 2?
JAR JAR: In response to the direct threat to the Republic from the Confederacy of Independent Systems, I propose that the Senate gives immediate emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.
I hear he's scheduled to die in Ep. 3, too...
The question would come down to whether Creative Commons has any value in the eyes of the court. Copyright law is pretty clear on all of this. If you create it it is yours whether you put that little symbol next to it and register it or not.
Unless Linspire can prove that he had the license under the general Attribution license when they used it then they are out of look. I just checked the google cache and it showed non-commercial. Either way - no matter what CC license you use they must always give credit where credit is due.
I am somewhat confused by drew_kime's assertion that "there's no such thing as intellectual property laws". SuperDuG may have been a little redundant, since copyrighted material is a form of intellectual property, but there are certainly intellectual property laws, and have been, in the US at least, for over 200 years.
Check out the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office site, particularly http://www.uspto.gov/main/aboutuspto.htm and look under Intellectual Property Options (info on patents, trademarks, etc.). It's a good site for the basics of intellectual property law.
The Copyright Office is actually under the aegis of the Library of Congress, so for complete information on copyright law specifically, go to http://www.copyright.gov/ - their FAQ section is pretty good.
Though the level of discussion on slashdot is higher than on most sites, and a lot of posters obviously are clear on the facts, it wouldn't hurt everyone to take a look at copyright basics at the source before speculating on what is and isn't covered.
If you leave a bunch of beers sitting on the street, with signs (links) pointing to them from all directions, and no note to say who can consume them, don't be surprised if some disappear. If you add a note later, you still can't demand anything from people who already took one.
Images seen on the web should be free by default and authors should (as in "nice thing to do") leave them free unless they are seriously planning to sell them through some well organized catalog. Otherwise, making a simple powerpoint presentation with screenshots of some popular web site will turn into a nightmare of tracking down a dozen people, sending them written forms, getting back signatures...
err are you just trying to be obtuse or is it a natural gift. While I don't support pirating music in any form, I've not seen anyone on ./ EVER advocate ripping tunes and then using them for commercial gain. The core of the ./ argument rational or not, is the PRIVATE PERSONAL USE involving format shifting, and the PURE OUTRAGE at the music industries monopolistic market manipulationn and continued gouging of both the consumers AND the producers.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'm somewhat confused by the comment "there's no such thing as intellectual property laws". SuperDuG may have been a little redundant, since copyrighted material is a form of intellectual property, but there are certainly intellectual property laws, and have been, in the US at least, for over 200 years. Check out the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office site, particularly http://www.uspto.gov/main/aboutuspto.htm and look under Intellectual Property Options (info on patents, trademarks, etc.). It's a good site for the basics of intellectual property law. The Copyright Office is actually under the aegis of the Library of Congress, so for complete information on copyright law specifically, go to http://www.copyright.gov - their FAQ section is quite good. Though the level of discussion on slashdot is higher than on most sites, and a lot of posters obviously are clear on the facts, it wouldn't hurt everyone to take a look at copyright basics at the source before speculating on what is and isn't covered.
Okay here's how it works:
It's kinda like how guns are good when a cop needs to stop a criminal from doing something bad, but they are bad when they're beng used by organized crime.
The problem isn't the existence of guns/copyright, the problem is that certain groups have things they shouldn't have and use them in ways that are bad for everyone but themselves.
Life is too short to proofread.
So is the EFF going to come to Linspire's defense if they're sued, the same way the EFF is defending your "right" to download music without paying?
Other than the copyright issues, the Linspire presentation was actually pretty well done...too well done for your average internal marketing dept.
It is possible that those images were hijacked by a outside marketing/production resource without Lindow's knowledge! If this piece was outsourced, chances are that Lindows was unaware. If that is the case, who is ultimately responsible;
-Lindows? or
-the Marketing firm? or
-the Indian labor pool that the Marketing firm subcontracted the coding and creative work to?
I'd post a URL to the demo but the Mac I'm on has inadequate mousing abilities.
[...] the one buttoned mouse has gotten the better of this poor soul.
I thought the Mac had a many-virtual-buttoned mouse, with the behavior modulated by shift keys (shift, ctrl, alt{?}, {a fourth one I don't recall}, and all binary combinations of them.)
It sounds like he can't figure out how to cut-and-paste between windows. I KNOW that's there (though it's been maybe a decade since I used a Mac so I don't recall exactly where.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It appears the offending images (and the section/chapter of the flash they were in) have been removed. No apology or recompense for Klowner though, I guess?
"They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
- i'm not surprised... - i've even had one of my software projects illegally reproduced and distributed by O'Reilly in David Pogue's book, "PalmPilot: The Ultimate Guide"... - this was DESPITE the fact the my copyright was included in the source and the binary (under About)... - but i didn't bust O'Reilly's chops about it, 'cause i met Tim O'Reilly at a Perl developers conference in Monterey a few years ago, and he was nice to me... - btw, Linspire is an awful distro: no man command, no SSH, does NOT support SATA, etc...
More anti-everyone-but-me diarrhea spewing from your hateful mouth...
Seems that intellectual property and copyright laws are something that Linspire still doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of.
And yet, let's post a Slashdot article decrying the actions of the government in cracking down on warez piracy. 80% of the comments in that article were mindless bitching from pirates who thought the government should have "better things to do" than enforce the law. And when RIAA/MPAA articles come up, suddenly it's bad that they go after individual downloaders (just as Slashdot was saying they should do during the Napster lawsuit years ago). I actually saw the phrase "Copyright Enforcement Militia." I mean, how can you even begin to respond to something like that?
Slashdotters only seem to care about copyrights when it comes to the GPL. Everyone else's are fair game. They're "free advertising" and "sampling."
This is off-topic and I accept moderations as such. Just had to say my piece. Hypocrisy bugs.
1. I looked around kde-look.org; when you upload something, you have to specify the type of license. But at least for the mentioned images this license is not clearly shown before downloading them - I couldn't even find it at all!
2. All the copyright information I saw was "Copyright 2001-2004 KDE-Look.org Team" below the page. I suppose Linspire must have seen the same copyright.
3. KDE-look.org is sponsored by Linspire. That effectively makes them allies on the front of spreading KDE to the world:)
So in my opinion kde-look.org is at fault; they receive a copyrighted upload for which the uploader has specified the license and what do they do? They totally ignore the license and republish the work of art as if it was their own. Until we know if Lindows possibly got permission to use this work from their "partner" kde-look.org, we won't know if they really made a mistake. If they didn't, kde-look.org sure did.
0x or or snor perron?!
Regardless of whether Mark derives income from sales of his graphics, it's clearly marked that his permission is required prior to use of the images. Not "if used in commercial work" or "free for individual use". They clearly didn't get his permission (or even ask for it) even though it was for use in a Flash movie.
If they have such a cavalier attitude towards ownership of something visible, what might they have done with something not quite as obvious?
Not only that, but the flash movies are ON THE CD. It is their introduction to the OS. Check out the CD. It's on EVERY SINGLE COPY of Lindows & Linspire CDs since at least 3.0. Now granted, they give it away...oh yeah, so they can get you to buy click-n-run. This is even WORSE! "Let's go steal artwork, not attribute the source, and then give it away as part of the OS so we can sell it."
Help stop their IPO. These people are a black eye for Linux
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
According to the ipo offering lindows/linspire is running out of cash. Probley didn't have enough to pay anyone, so someone just lifted it.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I have seen a few images on kde-look that were not public domain. Like for example this one, this one combining the famous win xp background and I think a tux that appeared on busness weekly, and this one.
For other example look through the themes sections.
we can only hope....
Jar Jar Binks MUST DIE!!!
someone should code this into OpenOffice or some other text editor as an easter egg. how funny would that be!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Without making excuses, I have to protest the obvious bias here. It is clear from the wording of the referenced article (more commentary than article, I'd say) that it was only licensed after finding out about its mis-us. Many have noted this, and have mentioned that copyright law protects automatically even if it had not been licensed.
However, at no point is any mention made of any effort to advise the makers of Lindows that the images being used are copyrighted and need to be removed or permission obtained. Isn't the first logical action to NOTIFY to offender and ask them to remove (or pay for) the use of the images? Why defame them for what could be a foolish error or an unknowing offense?
Now, IF Lindows was notified and deliberately ignored that notification and continued to use the images, we can be outraged. But until then, this is clearly more smear than news.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Michael Robertson here - CEO of Lindows.
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. Lindows downloaded these images from Kde-look (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
I guess open source art is not as common as open source software.
After all the comotion, I had to look at these "tutorials." I didn't see the offending art, but it did interest me in trying Linspire. I purchased the digital download, and it installed and ran wonderfully. I'm very impressed with this product. Very easy to use, just what all my non-geek friends need.
Thanks Linspire!
Nigel
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 send their hot wife over to personally deliver the package in her bikini and then have her proceed to fuck your brains out.
OK?
Good.
Back to eBay...
* Sitting On A Chair (Probably In My Underwear), Slightly Bemused, And Perhaps Chuckling
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Didnt they change their name? Almost every segment of this demo has LindowsOS in it - either on the desktop, so other facet of the user interface or in the audio.
Maybe in my next presentation ill just change the headers and hope no one notices the content - oh yeah, i already do that.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
If the author submitted it to KDE-Look it is expected that he releaes it under a free license. Just as one would expect that screenshots found on KDE-LOOK and legally be used in a product if no specific license is mentioned. Unfortuantely, he did not make not fo the license and so Lindows just used it. This news item is jsut flamebaid and does not deserve a news item.
Linspire was good in the sense that every other ignorant moron had heard of "Lindows" which was going to "Kick Windows' Ass". These are the same people who think Microsoft built their computer because it says "Windows" when you turn it on. They also don't understand how I can build a "Windows" computer from spare parts.
These people would have bought "Lindows" PC's from Walmart or Best Buy. They would then have called their favorite geek up asking why their games were "broken" and to come fix it immediately.
Trust me, having unwashed fools on Linux is a bad idea. Apple has played an excellent balancing act in hiding OS-X's BSD roots from those who fear the black terminal window, but they are probably the only ones who can pull off such mastery.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Perhaps someone can enlighten me. There are two sides here - the people who are supporting the artist and the people who are saying his work should be just as free as the operating system that his art portrays.
My question is - isn't his artwork... um... art? And not an operating system? Why should someone's completely original work - that they did not necessary contribute for the purpose of free and unbridled public usage - be held up to the other people's standards?
If you create something with your own two hands, whether compiling code or brandishing the photoshop brush, you have every right to control how that work is used - even if that means not sharing it at all. No matter how important you think you are, you do not have some divine RIGHT to access someone else's ORIGINAL information. That is only there place to decide.
Give the artist a break - it's his original work, Linspire shoplifted it, now they should have to pay the piper. Don't try to warp this into some sort of rally for free information access to absolutely everything. Anarchy doesn't work - sorry. If we couldn't retain the rights to our toils as we wished, nobody'd ever create anything good.
again? dont they learn?
"IMPORTANT: Recent controversy involving Lindows/Linspire Recently Slashdot posted an article that accuses Lindows of violating creative commons license, this is not true. I posted the CC license in response to learning that Linspire was using my graphics without permission. The reason for that was to make things clear for future problems, not linspire."
The truth is that linspire was using my graphics without first obtaining permission. I'm currently in talks with them to get this issue resolved. But just for the record, this is not an issue involving the newly posted creative commons license. I still hold authorship rights to the graphics
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
I know this will seem trollish, but I don't see what in the images was worth worrying about. Aren't they just several bubbles put together? All the "coolness" of the image seems to be what the drawing program took care of, like the gradients for the spheres and their shininess. It seems more like the hard work and talent belonged to the drawing-program developers.
He doesn't care. That's why there's a big blazing copyright notice on the bottom of the page.
Come on. Admit it. You're just too LAZY to care.
Hi. Um... this is all pointless.
Saying this guy's copyright is weakened by KDE-Look's lack of posted notices (and the construed implication) is hardly substantive. Attributing implied licensing to KDE-Look for Klowner's work is even less so. The acquisition of the work in question is not dependent on or limited to KDE-Look, although Linspire does say that's where they got it. KDE-Look is not Klowner nor do I imagine you will find any signed agreements from them imparting distributorship or agency. His work was posted there and there was no implication that commercial usage (and you would need to prove that Klowner felt it WAS implied or there was adequate evidence to show him it was or that other similar sites imply such usage and Klowner was aware of said implication [you'll fail at that, we can readily assume]) of images from the site was granted.
And, more to the point, you can get the work from many other sources. I could argue, and probably would if it were my case, that perhaps Linspire got the image from somewhere else, but chose to say it was from KDE-Look because of their close monetary ties to them and the lack of strong copyright notice (even though that's technically irrelevant...). But, in the end, it's all posturing. And one thing has not been overcome in this argument; according to US copyright law the onus of discovery and clearance is on the entity wishing to use the work, not the author. Linspire freely admits they made no attempts.
Linspire would need to go at least as fair as to attain in good faith the notion that KDE-Look has the right to represent Klowner in commercial dealings. They did not even go that far.
The fact that Linspire got it from KDE-Look is a tertiary consideration at best and does not make KDE-Look culpable or capable of weakening Klowner's copyright. Linspire did not seek to secure clearance from an author _who may not necessarily have posted the images for distribution_. And if Linspire ever paid for a single image, ever, they might as well not even bother to play the "I didn't realise" card.
KDE-Look's lack of posted notice is a red herring and to prove an implication would require lots of testimony (KDE-Look copping to 'implied', Linspire copping to implied, testimony that similar sites can be shown to imply commercial use, proof of what wording Klowner was provided by KDE-Look when uploading.... etc.).
And finally... lack of copyright notice is far more damaging (for Linspire) than a poorly worded notice. Because, as the original poster pointed out succinctly, Linsoft must, by law, assume that the work is copyright and restricted unless otherwise informed.
Your argument hinges on KDE-Look having some sort of right or license to commercial distribution agreed upon with the artist. Even bookstores have more implied commercial affiliation and yet they would not be seen to have a say in the author's rights in court.
Your argument is flawed by this. I could put up a site tomorrow, post the same wallpaper (that much is implied), that doesn't make me somehow a concerned party over the artist's rights.
- I am made of meat.
with info from klown's web site from http://www.dugnet.com/klown :
"IMPORTANT: Recent controversy involving Lindows/Linspire Recently Slashdot posted an article that accuses Lindows of violating creative commons license, this is an incorrect statement. I posted the CC license in response to learning that Linspire was using my graphics without permission. The reason for that was to make things clear for future problems, not Linspire.
The truth is that Linspire was using my graphics without first obtaining permission. I'm currently in talks with them to get this issue resolved. But just for the record, this is not an issue involving the newly posted creative commons license. I still hold authorship rights to the graphics.
In short, the slashdot headline was false - as well as posted prior to Linspire being notified, but Linspire was using the graphics without first requesting permission. As soon as they were notified, the graphics were removed from the promotional animation.
Although this does not clear Linspire of copyright infringment
from the early beginning this news is very tendecious... it reminds me of Transactional analysis communication's game Now I've Got You - You Son of a Bitch which most of the FLOSS community tends to play against Linspire... i don't like it... it also says something about those peole:
"NIGYSOB vindicates the "ya just can't trust nobody, nowadays" paranoia and a he's (you're, she's, they're) not-OK existential position (usually secondary). P believes in the social (Adult-Adult) level and is usually unaware of the ulterior level in which P's Parent is saying to V's Child "I've been watching you, hoping you'd slip up. You did so, now I've got you . . . " P often sets V up for a predictable fall in order to further the vicious cycle of anger/aggression/anger and to relieve internal psychic pressure from a repressed not-OK Child.
This game can be immensely destructive. Second degree can lead to litigation and prison, third degree to injury or homicide. Play can move in several directions. The relationship between P and V may end, with each moving into new games (Poor Me, SWYMD, etc.) as Victims for a well-intentioned Rescuer. If P and V continue in a love/hate relationship, then additional rounds may ensue, with P collecting righteousness and triumph stamps and V masochistically collecting humiliation. Alternately, retaliation by V can lead into a game of Uproar, or V may proceed, with hurt feelings, into other victim games such as: Kick Me, Poor Me, There I Go Again, or Wooden Leg.
Tendency is entrenched in NIGYSOB players and successful antithesis usually requires therapeutic intervention, aimed at insight, release of repressed rage, and deconfusion of the Child.
One nitpick - you don't have the right to control how the work is USED, but rather how it's REDISTRIBUTED. If you create a piece of art, and I think it's shit, so much so that I print it out, place it in my toilet bowl, and drop a Cleveland steamer on it, then I have done nothing wrong or illegal. If I want to make a million personal copies and store them in the closet, I'm fully within my rights as long as I don't redistribute any of the copies without permission. Also, with sufficiently rare, vintage works of art, preservation trumps copyright from a moral standpoint - if we'd had personal recording technology and the Internet back when the Du Mont network was around, then all those old shows would not be lost to time due to being dumped in the river, because someone would be sharing them on P2P.
FC Closer
Fair enough. I thought "used" wasn't a good word to describe what I meant either. But the dictionary/thesaurus was across the room. It would not come at my command. Also - I was even too lazy to open up webster.com. That meant more typing.