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."
"Limited Bandwidth"
(From the email, about the wallpaper site!) Good job Slashdot. Poor some salt in this guy's wounds.
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...
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...
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.
Ha! I kill me!
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"?
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.
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.
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
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?
> Is it really proper to allow artists to make money off of GPLed code?
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...
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
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.
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?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
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?
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
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.
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.
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.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
I agree completely about the GPL and profit; however, I would have to add that the Creative Commons license is more restrictive than the GPL. Otherwise I would suspect that the use in question here would be allowed.
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.
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
"As of April 24th, the images are licensed under the Creative Commons License (Attribution/NonCommercial) which explicitly states that the work may not be used for commercial purposes, unless permission is provided by the author"
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...
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
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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...
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.
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.
Because if no specific license is offered, then basic copyright applies. This means you have no right to make derivatives, commercial or otherwise.
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). It's just plain sloppy to put a file up for download with no license.
...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!
It's just another example of some heartless corporation who runs roughshod over the rights of the "little guy". We should do everything we can to negate the influence of this EVIL corporat...what? No, this is Windows they're talking abou...oh, you mean it's just a Windows lookalike...ohhhhhhh....
Nevermind.
(Dammit! So much for picking up a cheap +5 Insightful...)
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
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
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.
I get the impression from your comments that you think this is a minor infraction.
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."
Random and weird software I've written.
I'd still like Linux even if Linspire didn't promote it. Honestly speaking, I don't want every MS user out there to migrate to Linux and whine for the developers to work on features. I like Linux for functionality without having useless features crammed onto my desktop and opening security holes in my memory space whether I like them or not.
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 to the business scam or a symptom of a seriously dysfunctional society that everyone wants friendly and attractive computers but no one does much more than write e-mail and complain about spam.
Professional chefs have functional kitchens. Professional construction workers have functional trucks. Professional scientists have functional labs. Professional artists have functional studios.
Let the home users keep Microsoft. Maybe they'll eventually get MS to tighten up all the code holes and secure their OS. Maybe we'll get pushed to bigger and bigger hardware locks like Trusted Computing and DRM. Getting the masses to switch to Linux isn't going to stop corporate greed. Corporate greed will never stop Linux users from using Linux. Trusted computing is just another hardware algorithm. Eventually someone will figure out a way around it and then we'll have the same cycle as network admin tools: who's good and who's bad?
Even if promotion is the excuse greed is not acceptable.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
- 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.
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.
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.
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 law is not intended to be a lottery, it's intended to be fair, based on what is actually damaged.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
...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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
You are missing the point. It is one thing to use the image without permission. It is totally another thing to not even credit the creator.
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 ?
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?
What's the difference?
A very good question, and one which people like RMS incorrectly answer when it comes to the GNU FDL. The problem comes when we consider the nature of the work in question.
Software is clearly a tool-- no matter how fine the craftsmanship of the code, ultimately software (more to the point, the source code) is a means, not an end. Especially because to use software generally requires the software to go from a human-readable form to a binary form. The binary form then "runs" on hardware to do stuff. Some of us believe that free software is an essential part of progress (open source attitude)-- a pragmatic question. Others believe that sharing the ideas that code expresses is something that should not be restricted (free software movement attitude)-- a moral question.
Writing and art are also tools, but very different tools-- the "source" code for any visual artwork or written work is indistinguishable from the work itself. Non-fiction is clearly a tool to express ideas. When we find technical documentation encumbered with partially free or wholly un-free licenses, this is as bad as the case of the non-free software, whether for pragmatic or moral reasons. Some of might extend the need for this type of freedom to all sorts of non-fiction, especially when it comes to the right to copy and share.
Where we find the most ambiguity is with creative works and fiction. Some might argue that these types of works serve no purpose other than enjoyment or enhancement. There is also a sense that these types of works require a greater sense of "creativity" than non-fiction works. But the biggest danger is that of dilution, either of a known style, or of a story line or what have you. If everyone can use and modify an existing artwork, this may diminish the effectiveness of the original. Obviously famous works (like the "Mona Lisa") get used all over with no danger to the original work because the original is so famous in its own right. But what about an artist trying to establish his work's place? What about a mesage that gets distorted by reuse? Example: what if everyone were free to write their own sequels to the Harry Potter series? Or even to take the existing works and change the endings?
This is the difference. Personally I don't agree with it. I hold the belief that property is property and expression is expression and that expression cannot be treated like property (although I do not support plagiarism or other forms of fraud). I find it especially confusing when artwork is intended to accompany free software that it would be encumbered by trademark or dissimilar copyright license terms. That sort of thing could make it very difficult to share the software in any modified form. In this case, the restriction is on commercial activity. Does that mean that non-profits are exempt, even if they sell a product using the image? What if the profit-making entity makes no direct revenues from the use of the image? It's a grey area, and I don't know if the CC license really answers those kinds of questions.
I do not have a signature
Well, those are certainly more restrictive terms than most Free Software licenses impose. I've used software that was beer-free for non-commercial use, but where they charged a fee for commercial use... that's commercial sofwtare to me.
If Linux or *BSD had been licensed on such terms, they would have languished in obscurity.
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.'