Slashdot Mirror


Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers On Twitter

snitty writes "Wil Shipley, developer of Delicious Library, found some applications on the iTunes App Store that were using without permission some images from his popular desktop application. He outed them on Twitter. The team at Technically Legal broke down the story and the take-home messages for using other people's images."

164 comments

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Image off of his website.

    Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

    1. Re:Hmm by Itninja · · Score: 4, Informative

      When the President does it, it's not illegal.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal

    3. Re:Hmm by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

      More to the point: did he try to pass them off as his own? No.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

      More to the point: did he try to pass them off as his own? No.

      This centers around one party using another party's compyrighted property without permission.

      His image looks like a photoshopped version of a stock, copyrighted Apple image:

      Apple Macbook Pro

      I'm using the lighting on the top left corner and the artifacts around the camera. I wonder if he asked for permission from Apple before manipulating that image of theirs.

      It's bad if someone uses his wood grain background without permission (to make money, no less). But when he uses someone elses' copyrighted material (to, in turn, push his own product), it's fine and dandy.

      Either derivative works are fine or not.

    5. Re:Hmm by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Are those fair use applications?

      Pretty sure the answer to that is "yes, of course".

    6. Re:Hmm by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      Additionally, he says: "And at best I'd maybe get an injunction, not damages. And, really, they're not making enough money for me to regain my losses."

      Uh, what losses? Granted, if he owns the copyright to the image, it's illegal to use them without his permission. But in what way did the use of those images actually cause him any losses? How was he actually harmed? I have no issue with him asking, or even demanding, that they stop using his artwork. But to claim "losses" is downright silly.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    7. Re:Hmm by Amorya · · Score: 1

      I think he means the losses he'd make taking it to court i.e. hiring lawyers etc.

    8. Re:Hmm by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      I think you are largely correct about what he means. But there is also a loss in that they are creating a somewhat similar competing product using his work product and potentially confusing customers that might have bought his product etc. Not easily quantifiable, but none the less, also an actual loss.

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    9. Re:Hmm by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      His photoshop job of the original MacBook picture is certainly an original composition, even though he uses several copyrighted photos, he adds enough to it that it is almost certainly legal.

      Now, copying his photo for your own, commercial use in no way adds to the composition, or changes the original, and it's just plain copyright infringement.

      We have rules for the way these things work, and though they tend to be judgement calls we have pretty well worked things out in these cases. Borderline cases are always iffy, but this doesn't seem that borderline. Though he used many copyrighted photos, the new photo is certainly unique.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    10. Re:Hmm by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I clicked through one of the links to an "offender" and I saw a
      bunch of James Bond DVD covers that look suspiciously like they
      came off of Amazon (like some of mine have). Or they could have
      just been scans (when Amazon is a bust).

      How do you sort out no less than 3 possible sources for the same
      rather generic image?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Hmm by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The images of Starcraft and Peggle are displayed within his app via an licence with Amazon to use those images. Amazon presumably has the permission to do this from the publishers who are selling their products through Amazon. So, neither of us know, but I'd tend to assume that he does indeed have the appropriate permissions.

      As to the macbook image, Will Shipley is the indie developer with probably the closest links to Apple. Close enough to be talking to them regularly. Again I suspect he knows what images he's allowed to use. Apple WANT images of their products out there, and do supply images for others to use.

      But perhaps you're just trolling.

    12. Re:Hmm by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Riiiight, most consumers, nearly all aren't that stupid. Unless you are using an easily identifiable logo, 99.9% of people won't notice a difference. For example, if I use the Slashdot favicon, people -might- be confused into thinking it was Slashdot, but lets say they use http://c.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsecurity.gif ? No one thinks its Slashdot then even though it uses an image from Slashdot.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    13. Re:Hmm by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      These two programs pretty much the same thing and look *very* similar. In fact one has taken image resources from the other in order, presumably, to look more like it. How could it *not* confuse people?
      Just look at the two screenshots:
      http://delicious-monster.com/images/librarypage/screenshots/iphonepublishing_BIG.png
      http://iphone.netwalk.be/sites/default/files/01-main.jpg

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    14. Re:Hmm by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      Those look like different wood grain patterns. The thumbnail layout is also different. Or does Delicious Monster think they own a patent on wood grain backgrounds and virtual bookshelf interfaces?

      I'm all for rewarding people for original innovations and ingenuity, but a "wooden bookshelf" interface metaphor for a virtual catalog application seems pretty obvious. Apple had a stronger case going after people who imitated OS X's aqua theme with gel buttons and shiny/transparent UIs.

      If I'm wrong, and they did steal the wood grain pattern image directly from Delicious Monster, then that is pretty shady—particularly for a commercial company. But I don't think you can claim that you suffered "losses" just because someone else also used an incredibly obvious idea that you came upon first (if they were even the first at all). That's like Amazon claiming that they suffered losses because someone else also implemented one-click checkout on their online store, or that Creative suffered losses because subsequent MP3 players also used hierarchical menus.

    15. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama and Pelosi, Reid and Boxer and Schumer and many more - all assholes.

    16. Re:Hmm by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Taking someone's photo and making a lot of changes to it does not cause the result to no longer be a derivative work.

      Presumably his wood grain was just one copyrighted images, the developers of these apps used to create an overall unique composition...

    17. Re:Hmm by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      But the issue was copyright law - so no, that's not more to the point. (Also I'm not sure I'd agree that the people here were passing it off as their own - they weren't rehosting them as stock images, for example.)

  2. Twitter by Idiomatick · · Score: 0, Troll

    How is this special? I mean really? It is just a shitty blog service that has been self gimped.

    Headlines:
    Man with missing toe kills wife!
    Bald woman overcomes her fear of deep water
    Building painted yellow falls down
    Mice like Cheese, President shot!
    Slashdotter has sex!

    ... Wait that last one makes sense. Point still stands. The story isn't special because of twitter. Just people that use twitter are 'special'.

    1. Re:Twitter by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah. the twitter angle was pretty much gratuitous. I think it's become the Web2.0 way of making something cool: wedge "on Twitter" on the end of the sentence. Just like "in my pants" automatically makes any sentence hilarious.

      "Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants"

      Yup. Hilarious.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Twitter by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      I suppose it is a somewhat savvy leveraging of Twitter hype.

      Even the most peripheral "connection" to Twitter is still enough to get a story bumped up on the perceived relevancy scale. At least as percieved by people who don't quite get Twitter or the appeal but sure hear about it a lot and are thus afraid of seeming un-hip by asking "what is this lame shit, really?" (IOW "Does the Emperor know he is naked").

      Or maybe he is another narcissistic Twitter addict trying desperately to imbue it with significance by by further expanding its portfolio of uses.

    3. Re:Twitter by NinjaPablo · · Score: 1

      "Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants on Twitter"

      --
      SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
    4. Re:Twitter by drunkenoafoffofb3ta · · Score: 1

      It's not even the first example of iPhone app devs nicking wood effect graphics from other iPhone apps -- in this earlier case, e-book readers. Twitter sold it to the media something good.

    5. Re:Twitter by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Super Volt?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:Twitter by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. How did your pants get on Twitter?

      --
      Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
    7. Re:Twitter by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1

      "Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants on Twitter"

      That's what SHE said!

    8. Re:Twitter by bit01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah. the twitter angle was pretty much gratuitous.

      It's probably twitter marketing parasites. Any "news" item that even remotely mentions twitter gets spammed everywhere.

      Most people seriously underestimate just how much astroturfers = stealth/undercover marketers = shills = low lifes have invaded social networking sites and the net in general. They talk the talk of ethics but they rarely walk the walk. Twitter is currently one of the worst.

      Anytime you see a one-sided "story" talking about some commercial product, or have trouble trying to have a legitimate discussion with a commercial product zealot (there are very few consumers who are zealots about any commercial product), you're probably dealing with an astroturfer. They are lying shits, make their life hell.

      ---

      Astroturfing "marketers" are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion. Anonymous commercial speech should be illegal.

    9. Re:Twitter by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      It's probably twitter marketing parasites. Any "news" item that even remotely mentions twitter gets spammed everywhere.

      What with Twitter and the Iphone mention, it means that an otherwise uninteresting mundane event becomes frontpage news!

  3. So is copyright good or bad by wiredog · · Score: 1

    in this case?

  4. Not very mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously?

    The best way he could think of handling the issue of someone using his images without consent was to whine about it on Twitter?

    And Slashdot thinks this is news?

  5. Slashbot response by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Funny

    Take down notice: BAD

    Software developer: GOOD

    Copyrights: BAD

    Twitter: GOOD

    Lawsuit: BAD

    Caught red-handed: GOOD

    ==Head Assplodes=l

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Slashbot response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ==Head Ass

      I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there.

    2. Re:Slashbot response by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      Twitter: GOOD

      Did I miss the announcement? I thought we were all still supposed to be shaking our canes and yelling at those damn kids to get off our lawns.

    3. Re:Slashbot response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me until "Twitter: GOOD"

  6. This is more about plagiarism by Rix · · Score: 1

    Copyright didn't really come into play.

    1. Re:This is more about plagiarism by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... yes it did?

      This has nothing to do with plagiarism, it's about an iPhone app that uses a texture (a copyrighted image) illegaly. It's licensed under Creative Commons, which does not allow for commercial use, and I believe it also requires attribution. To use his image legally, they needed to get a separate commercial license from the artist. They did not do this, so it is a copyright violation.

      What part of that is NOT about copyright? And where the hell did you get plagiarism from?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:This is more about plagiarism by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Well, to be accurate, plagiarism is a facet of copyright. You can't have anti-plagiarism laws without some form of ownership of information.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re: This is more about plagiarism by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      Plagiarism and counterfeiting are the only things I'd ever heard of as copyright infringement before the RIAA started suing people.

      "My Sweet Lord" vs. "He's So Fine," and John Fogerty vs. John Fogerty come to mind. There are many more.

      Getting upset over a background image seems rather petty and insignificant.

  7. The Image by FornaxChemica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The copyrighted image is actually the "woodgrain background", quoting Technically Legal. Is this a joke? The whole story is about a background texture being stolen? Some actual artists out there who've been ripped off must be feel pretty distressed right now.

    1. Re:The Image by WarwickRyan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo.

      Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

      Seems to me like the real reason for him being angry is that the iPhone application he's complaining about looks to be basically an iPhone version of his desktop application. Someone beat him to it on the iPhone and he's mad..

    2. Re:The Image by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

      Because sometimes even when you do both of those things, you get nowhere fast. Twitter is something that a lot of people utilize and it's a good way to go about expressing your frustration and getting the word out to a lot of people (including the offender) quickly.

    3. Re:The Image by coaxial · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, it is the texture. But let's be honest here. It's not just the texture. It's the whole look of the application. Delicious Library has a VERY distinctive look. Books and DVD boxes sitting on wooden shelves. It's unmistakable, yet these applications completely aped it. More importantly, it is confusingly similar.

    4. Re:The Image by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

      The guy (who's texture was "stolen") sells a product that lets you scan a UPC of a CD, DVD, etc and then "downloads" a digital image of the cover.

      So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)

    5. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause a company like Microsoft would never borrow the look and feel of another program, like say Mozilla Firefox's tabs...

    6. Re:The Image by stickystyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems to me like the real reason for him being angry is that the iPhone application he's complaining about looks to be basically an iPhone version of his desktop application. Someone beat him to it on the iPhone and he's mad..

      Actually, he did have an iPhone version of his app but Amazon.com forced him to pull it http://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/2517428863

      --
      Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
    7. Re:The Image by ebingo · · Score: 1

      Not really, he already had an application for the iPhone, but Amazon asked him to remove it:
      http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/delicious-library-for-iphone-runs-afoul-of-amazons-api-terms-p/

    8. Re:The Image by diamondsw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except he's been on the iPhone for a while - until Amazon yanked all mobile licenses to their data.

      This goes back to the whole issue of stealing "look and feel", which they most certainly did. Whether that constitutes legal copyright infringement is beyond me (and I imagine 99% of the commenters on /.).

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    9. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause a company like Microsoft would never borrow the look and feel of another program, like say Mozilla Firefox's tabs...

      Or, like say kayak.com
      http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/kayak-bing/

    10. Re:The Image by tsa · · Score: 1

      Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

      Why didn't he just put the pictures on his website as examples of how NOT to use his texture?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    11. Re:The Image by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

      Because sometimes even when you do both of those things, you get nowhere fast.

      Who cares about "sometimes", there's due process. Outing someone for infringing your copyright is akin to vigilante justice. While that works in comic books, in real life you just get violations of the law to enforce the law.

      If it does turn out it's similar but not his texture then he's opened himself up for law suits for defamation.

    12. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're Amazon's images, and yes, he has permission to use them.

    13. Re:The Image by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Outing someone for infringing your copyright is akin to vigilante justice.

      WTF? No it's not, not at all.

      Vigilante justice would be breaking into his house and stealing stuff worth what you consider to be the value of a license to use your copyrighted work.

      Beating him up would also be vigilante justice.

      Do you even know what "vigilante" means? Holy cow man. Yelling "Stop! Thief!" is not vigilantism, and neither is calling someone who steals your picture a copyright infringer.

      If it does turn out it's similar but not his texture then he's opened himself up for law suits for defamation.

      Not really, do you understand what defamation is? It's damaging one's reputation, character, or good name by slander or libel.

      Now, slander is a false statement injurious to a person's reputation. Libel is essentially the same with print.

      All that to say, if the person saying/writing it believes it to be the truth, then it is not slander or libel and therefor not defamation. Slander and Libel, and therefore defamation, are notoriously difficult to prove. Else we would not have the political system we have.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    14. Re:The Image by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      He's not selling anybody's images, the photos are downloaded after the fact from a presumably public source.

      It's the program that he is selling.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    15. Re:The Image by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)

      Yes. He gets the images from Amazon, and he's been in talks with them for some time on the subject, just to make sure that he accesses and uses the images and data in a legal manner. But hey, accusing him without looking into the situation is all the rage these days, so I can understand where you're coming from.

    16. Re:The Image by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online?

      He gets the covers from Amazon. And yes, he contacted Amazon and got permission to use the covers the way he uses them.

    17. Re:The Image by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Someone beat him to it on the iPhone and he's mad..

      It's useful to look into the situation sometimes before you talk. The truth of the matter is that his app was pulled from the AppStore because Amazon changed the terms of their API over the summer. Delicious Library was on the AppStore before these knock-offs, but isn't any longer, so he did beat them to market. Also, who's to say that he didn't e-mail them? Twitter isn't a press conference (though it may reach a larger audience on occasion), so it's not like he's making a big deal of it in public.

    18. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "VERY distinctive" ... seriously? There are four places in my apartment I could take a picture and capture the same "look and feel". Why? Because objects sitting on wooden shelves is about as old as old gets. If you are going to acuse anyone of "aping" then you need to start at the source.
       
      In any case, I would submit that wooden shelves with things on them is essentially common culture and anyone can do anything they please with the concept. No one owns the exclusive rights to wooden shelves, and if someone ever did, it expired about 2000 years ago.

    19. Re:The Image by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that, because the system designed to protect him is broken and slow, it's okay for him to make inflammatory, potentially false, public statements about other people, in his own interest, because the system design to protect them is also broken and slow?

      Just as a side-note, you're only half-right about the "belief of truth" clause. The second half of that is that there can also not be a "reckless disregard for whether the statement is true or false." And that's only as right as the state in which we're talking jurisdiction. Depending on whether he has more proof than, "Hey! That super-generic background texture looks just like a really super-generic background texture I derived from existing work myself!" they might have a case.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    20. Re:The Image by garcia · · Score: 1

      Depending on whether he has more proof than, "Hey! That super-generic background texture looks just like a really super-generic background texture I derived from existing work myself!" they might have a case.

      I think we were talking more in general than you are here. If someone is 100% confident in the fact that they are being wronged, I just don't see what the problem is with taking the information public.

    21. Re:The Image by russotto · · Score: 1

      True, it is the texture. But let's be honest here. It's not just the texture. It's the whole look of the application.

      Look-n-feel copyright went down in flames in the Apple v. Microsoft case.

    22. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny story: you're completely wrong. He released a Delicious Library application for the iPhone some time ago, only to have Amazon change its terms of use and force him to pull the app from the App Store.

    23. Re:The Image by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Tabs have existed in the Windows UI for as long as I can remember. Their application in browsers is relatively new (why it took as long as it did for someone to think it up is beyond me, but I can't hold that against them since they thought of it before I would have), but Microsoft's use of tabbed interfaces existed LONG before the release of IE7.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    24. Re:The Image by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Well, it's distinctive from other software apps, but it's not in general a distinctive interface.

      Everyone with a physical bookshelf at home has seen Books and DVDs sitting in a bookshelf. That essentially means the UI isn't "novel", as in he didn't create a new type of interface.

      He took something everyone's seen before and made his UI look just like it.

      And his app's not the first to use that metaphor either. But it's probably the first that actually used that metaphor, did something useful, and didn't suck.

      So, uh, the wood grain is very possibly the best thing he's got to complain about....

    25. Re:The Image by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Nobody beat him to the iPhone. Delicious Library has its own iPhone app which has been out for a while. You might not know this, being an obvious non-Mac user, but Delicious Library is actually fairly big on that platform.

    26. Re:The Image by wannabgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you seen this site? http://www.shelfari.com/
      The look is very similar. I wonder who took from whom?

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    27. Re:The Image by twoshortplanks · · Score: 1

      ll that to say, if the person saying/writing it believes it to be the truth, then it is not slander or libel and therefor not defamation. Slander and Libel, and therefore defamation, are notoriously difficult to prove. Else we would not have the political system we have.

      I'd just like to point out that while that might be true in your country, it's not the same everywhere. In the UK you have to be able to stand up and prove what you say (the burden of proof is on the statement issuer).

      --
      -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
    28. Re:The Image by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Well, it's distinctive from other software apps, but it's not in general a distinctive interface.

      That's all that matters though.

    29. Re:The Image by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Look-n-feel copyright went down in flames in the Apple v. Microsoft case.

      It's not look and feel. It's trade dress.

    30. Re:The Image by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    31. Re:The Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yelling "Stop! Thief!" is not vigilantism, and neither is calling someone who steals your picture a copyright infringer.

      Indeed. Are they stealing it, or are they making a duplicate of it, it can't be both as one case leaves you with the original and the other does not.

    32. Re:The Image by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)

      Yes.

      Best. Answer. Ever.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:The Image by sjames · · Score: 1

      Honestly, we'd all be a lot better off if name and shame replaced the courts as the next step up from asking in private. The constant stream of lawsuits is a drain on the economy and the "you can be sued by anyone at any time for anything" is a big chilling effect on anything economically productive.

      It also has the benefit that if the person who "names and shames" has no valid complaint the world shrugs and the otherwise defendant isn't out a big pile of time and money. Another benefit is that people with a legitimate grievance but no money for a lawyer can still afford to name and shame.

      The only question will be how well people make the necessary social adjustments to name and shame. Primarily understanding that it may or may not be true, similar to product reviews. In the latter I have found that any product, no matter how good will have some negative reviews out there and no matter how bad, it will have some positive reviews (even after discounting astroturfing). At the same time, if the overwhelming majority of reviews are bad, it probably IS a bad product. The same would tend to apply to individual and corporate reputation in this context.

    34. Re:The Image by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      A bit of an oversimplification on my part...but yeah...I couldn't help myself since it just sounded like fun to say.

  8. Lol.. reminds me of a friend. by joocemann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know the guy who made the blue frog on the Azureus startup screen.... and it wasn't for Azureus.

    lol.

    1. Re:Lol.. reminds me of a friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      him name is hopkin blue frog?

      p.s. i'll find my frog
      who took my frog
      who found my frog

  9. He's complaining about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...someone "stealing" a wood-grain texture. On Twitter moreover, because in Court he might have to explain exactly where the creative work is in a wood-grain texture (in the tree), or what harm he's suffered as a result (none).

    And yet, his own software, that he sells as $40 shareware for the Mac (...why?!), is designed specifically to display copyrighted and/or trademarked cover art of other people's software/music/etc, in its entirety, without the permission of the copyright/trademark holders. Did he ask them? I doubt it. Is it Fair Use? Pretty clear "no" on that, it doesn't check any of the boxes.

    And yet, he gets pissy over a woodgrain texture. Good grief. Damn control-freak shareware authors. Bloody hypocrites. Let's move on, now, please, this really doesn't deserve screen space here.

    Next on Slashdot: Neighbour mows 2cm of next-door neighbour's lawn. Hilarity (and feud) ensues. *yawn*

    1. Re:He's complaining about... by diamondsw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Delicious Library is one of the most popular Mac shareware apps, and is exceptionally well-designed. Those wood bookcases are central to its UI look and feel. And he's already written an iPhone app - except Amazon decided to yank all mobile licenses to their data. Yes, that's right, he pays Amazon for access to their data, so it is legal use and paid for.

      So your entire post is written like a true asshat who has no idea what's going on, and has contributed nothing. But that never stops Slashdot.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    2. Re:He's complaining about... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dude... thanks for telling.

      I though this was about the icons and glyphs, which in many high-quality applications are actually designed by external design studios for lots of money. I can imagine getting pissed about somebody taking something which you actually had to pay quite a bit for.

      But this is just a woodgrain texture, and a pretty ugly one at it.
      I mean seriously, it isn't hard to make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one:
      5 minute photoshop tutorial: http://www.tutorio.com/tutorial/photoshop-wood-texture
      Free windows program for making wood textures: http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/ww_overview.htm

      Heck, for all we know he actually used one of these or a source image, in which case he couldn't even claim copyright over it since anybody who made it themselves using such methods would end up with an identical texture.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:He's complaining about... by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it's that easy to "make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one", then how come none of those lazy bastards did it instead of poaching his?

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    4. Re:He's complaining about... by Animaether · · Score: 1

      I mean seriously, it isn't hard to make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one

      Which should lead to the rather obvious question that most people who state that it's "just a stupid background image" seem not to naturally stumble into...

      If it's so easy, why didn't the accused do so, instead of copy/pasting from this guy?

    5. Re:He's complaining about... by JackRandom · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least one of the apps' woodgrain looks considerable different. (PantryList) I'm not sure how he's determining that "generic" woodgrain is suddenly omfg copyright!!! infringement. Seems like a bunch of hand waving to me.

    6. Re:He's complaining about... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      And yet, his own software, that he sells as $40 shareware for the Mac (...why?!), is designed specifically to display copyrighted and/or trademarked cover art of other people's software/music/etc, in its entirety, without the permission of the copyright/trademark holders. Did he ask them? I doubt it. Is it Fair Use? Pretty clear "no" on that, it doesn't check any of the boxes.

      He gets the artwork from Amazon, with permission. In fact, Amazon provides an API for this.

    7. Re:He's complaining about... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Wrong on all points. That must be a record.

    8. Re:He's complaining about... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Let me correct you. "For all YOU know". Others here know better.

      Actually the development process of Delicious Library has been blogged about and formed the topic of a number of conference presentations. It is a ground breaking app.

      The wood texture was commissioned from an artist, and took a number of iterations back to the artist to redo before it looked right for the app. That's the reason why people keep stealing Delicious Library's artwork to use in competitor programs (this isn't the first time). Any old wood texture simply won't do.

      Why is there so much ignorance of design on Slashdot?

    9. Re:He's complaining about... by Animaether · · Score: 1

      https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/3966821025

      In summary (summarizing a twitter post, really? ;)).. they're pixel-for-pixel the same. He's not claiming copyright on 'a generic woodgrain pattern'. He's claiming copyright on -that exact- woodgrain image.

      http://iphone.netwalk.be/sites/default/files/04-quickfind.jpg
      ( note: the developer of this application has already stated that he will change the graphics - citing that he was unaware the image was that of the delicious app - so that picture may change )
      vs
      http://delicious-monster.com/images/librarypage/screenshots/Delicious-Library.png

      They're at different scales so a pixel-for-pixel comparison won't work for those two, but it should give you a reasonable indication of the exact pattern and whether or not you believe they indeed match.

    10. Re:He's complaining about... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Why is there so much ignorance of design on Slashdot?

      I know that is a rhetorical question, but... Slashdot is full of nerds who think that pure functionality is much more important than form or design, which ironically is one of the things holding back open source from ever being relevant in the market at large. Most of the geeks here have nothing but absolute scorn that computers moved past CLI, ignoring the fact that this was probably one of the largest contributors to PCs spreading in influence and popularity, and thus one of the key points of advancement and innovation in the industry as a whole.

      Basically: functionality > usability, ignoring the fact that they amount to about the same when done right.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    11. Re:He's complaining about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I don't know anybody that's anal-retentive enough to catalog their possessions on their computer (and on a faux "bookshelf", when real ones exist and cost less than the application does). I'd seriously rethink your assessment of this man and his "work".

    12. Re:He's complaining about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's so easy, why didn't the accused do so, instead of copy/pasting from this guy?

      Because it's slightly easier.

    13. Re:He's complaining about... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Actually I kinda DO know, given that I get paid to create special effects for graphic designers and kinda HAVE to know or go broke.

      The fact that he had the texture commissioned and that the "artist" didn't get it perfect the first time still doesn't make it anything other than trivial. The nature of human communication pretty much ensures he wouldn't get it right the first time.

      Obviously it isn't a nice thing that people keep copying that particular texture. Especially when they could just ask a friend to make a better one in an hour. But my point is that the texture is far too generic and simple to be protectable by copyright. Similar like how a gradient background would be too generic and simple.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    14. Re:He's complaining about... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I agree he gets no points by his claims of "stealing", though:

      On Twitter moreover, because in Court he might have to explain exactly where the creative work is in a wood-grain texture (in the tree), or what harm he's suffered as a result (none).

      For the latter point, I don't see that showing harm is required for something to be copyright infringement.

      The former is more intersting - under US law, there is that ruling (that I agree with) that a direct reproduction of a public domain image can't itself be copyrighted, as there is no creative element. OTOH, in general photos of scenes can be copyrighted. A photograph of a tree could be copyrighted too - there is still a creative element, no matter how minimal.

      It would be interesting to see how this might work for something as simple as close up wood textures. The thing is that there are awful lot of stock texture sites out there, some of them under various creative commons licences, but many of them commercial. A court ruling could have wide ranging implications, for better or worse.

      To be honest I don't have that much sympathy for the people using his image. If I'm writing software, I sometimes need stock texture images for games I write - if I'm going to be distributing them, I make damn sure I get the licences right. That doesn't mean they deserve to be sued with RIAA style damages, nor does it mean they are stealing - but at the same time, they are idiots for not following the licences, especially if they are doing this for profit (think how little sympathy there is when there's a for-profit application that violates the GPL?)

    15. Re:He's complaining about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop blaming Slashdot. Every community has empty-talkers who bring out the factoid dispensers like yourself.

  10. Penny Arcade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Penny Arcade, he gets "hand jobs from Steve Jobs". http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/7-2-07b.jpg

  11. Re:i frequently post scathing attacks on the riaa by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The RIAA didn't become the "big bad meanies" because of going after copyright infringers.

    They got that title through their strong arm tactics, legal arguments, twisted logic, abuse of the justice system, extortion... well, pretty much everything associated with how they operate these cases.

    Contrast the above to how this infringement was handled.

    I see no moral conflict here.

  12. Woodgrain texture? BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a lot of "waah" going on here. It's a frigging woodgrain texture for crying out loud. I wonder where the guy got the original?

  13. https? W.T.F? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why in the hell are you needlessly using https? Aside from the strain it puts on the webserver, is twitter so goddamn important that it merits this? Come on!

  14. You beat me to it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    So I'm going to call them thieves publicly and embarrass them. Skip the lawyers, let's go back to shaming people!

    A first step might have been to contact them, let them know that they were infringing, and see what the response was. Especially considering

    Stolen images update: Tom from Netwalk apologized, said he didn't know it was my texture, promised a resubmitted "MyMovies" update tonight!

    Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

  15. Just being lazy or don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are excellent free resources like

    http://www.cgtextures.com/

    They just didn't care. There may be another issue. He can't sue them over trademark but it could be part of the concern that if I was a fan of his work the background might make me assume he was tied to the product since it's dominant theme on his web page. Either way pirating the image could have been avoided just most people only think, want, need, take when it comes to things like this. Do your homework and you won't have to steal images.

  16. well this is boring by Eil · · Score: 1

    Guy A infringes on Guy B's copyright.
    Guy B calls out Guy A on Twitter.
    Guy A removes the infringed images.

    I at least expected 4-5 cross-referenced blog posts from each party containing legal threats and shouting about what a tool the other was. Instead, the situation was resolved amicably. Yawn. Call me when Kanye West does something retarded again.

  17. Re:Who cares, why are you promoting this story by Qubit · · Score: 1

    Even if it is proprietary software, it's an interesting discussion to have on how developers interact with each other when they're not sure that the legal system is the right place to take the fight, sociologically speaking. I mean, Twitter? Really? I guess whatever floats your boat...

    Aside from that part of it, I agree: why yammer about Apple and their proprietary goodies? Let them do their thing and let's do our own thing. They have marketshare and power because we give it to them. Just say no.

    Anyhow, mod parent up. I would if I had points.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  18. Plan to copyright all icons by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even in 16 bit color the set of all possible 32x32 icons is 67,108,864 bytes, ( 67 megs )for 32 bit color it's 4,398,046,511,104 or 4 terabytes.

    For 64x64 icons in 32 bit color, it's 17,592,186,044,416 bytes, or 17 terabytes.

    I am surprised some copyright troll doesn't copyright the set of all 128 x 128 icons at 32 bit color depth ( comprising 70 terabytes ) and then sue everyone who uses a new icon in any product into oblivion. Every possible icon would be contained in one of those copyrighted icons either in whole or in part. It might be worthwhile to copyright commonly used lower color depths as well, though it shouldn't be strictly necessary.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      oops. I just made a dumbass mistake. Damn it. I suck.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Not only did you get your operator precedence wrong, but you also appear to think that every image no matter what size can be stored in a single byte.

      Hint: there is a good reason nobody has tried to generate even all eight-by-eight black-and-white icons.

    3. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by bami · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I think (not exactly sure, my combination math is a bit rusty) that all image sets of 32x32 for 16 bit colour would give you (2^16)^(32x32), which is out of the range of most normal calculators, let alone find a storage bank big enough to hold that massive amount of data.

    4. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      But, if googles case against Germany(Whether a thumbnail is a "quote" under fair use(i know there is no such thing in specifically written in EU law, but everyone understands the term) or it is the same as the original image) fails in the EU courts, then we would not have to generate 32x32 we could make do with all 2*2 images(google makes images about 100*100px of pictures up to 3000x2000 so a factor ~10 seems resonable). Thats only 50 Petaabyte. That's 50'000 modern harddrives, so not completely infeasible, and it will be cheaper and cheaper to do.

    5. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one reason could be because the set would contain icons which are already copyrighted...
      generating such a set would be a surefire way to get sued

    6. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Yeah eight by eight icons are 2^(8x8) possibilities not 2x8x8. I am an idiot.

      --
      ...
    7. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Of course you are absolutely right. I can't believe I did that. Well, being a clutz yes I can. Anyway, it's certainly possible to copyright all 1x1 icons. And since any other icon will be built up of these, maybe there's a way to be a copyright troll after all..

      --
      ...
    8. Re:Plan to copyright all icons by skeeto · · Score: 1

      About 1.18973149536e4932 images. Slashdot won't let me post the whole number.

  19. What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? by Spazholio · · Score: 1

    I mean, when a program goes so long without being updated, touched, or improved upon in any way shape or form, it's gotta be public domain, right?

  20. Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people do by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1
    Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people do this?

    Stolen images update: Tom from Netwalk apologized, said he didnâ(TM)t know it was my texture, promised a resubmitted MyMovies update tonight!

    At a past company our web designers used to get their stock images randomly off the web, you know, the 'professional looking girl wearing the headset', for our web chat, etc., they used these images on our corporate site. Management was contacted once about it once I believe, they of course had no idea it went on and were pissed. But really, I've never heard of a web designer getting a budget to purchase high grade professional images.

  21. I wish it were a joke by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.

    I hate to say it, Mr. Shipley, but this is not the kind of trivial copyright stuff that we're constantly railing against. From TFA:

    If the owner of the image has registered that copyright, it can open you up to RIAA v. The People sized damages: thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per infringement.

    Congratulations Mr. Shipley, you're now being compared to organizations like the RIAA. Were you Right(TM) (as in, technically correct in that your copyright was violated)? Sure, I'll concede that, and if they knew that the texture came from you, they should have checked if it was okay before using it. But where you right (as in, responding in an ethically appropriate way)? Absolutely not. Again, from TFA:

    So I'm going to call them thieves publicly and embarrass them. Skip the lawyers, let's go back to shaming people!

    Mr. Shipley, it strikes me that you decided to publicly call someone a thief and unilaterally decided to shame them without really knowing the circumstances of the situation. Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.

    Or just maybe, being a small outfit or independent developer (which I can certainly empathize with), they got it from a third party who represented that it was either public domain or their texture. I know that for community projects I'm involved with, being as artistic as a two-by-four, when I need a resource like that, I usually post a message somewhere saying something like, "Hey, does anyone have an icon/texture/whatever that I can use?" If someone sends me one, I usually do the due diligence of asking them if I have the rights to use it (e.g. if it's public domain or, if they created it, if they are willingly giving me the rights to use it), but it's not like I hire a lawyer to do a detailed search of everything that's ever been copyrighted to verify it. I simply don't have the time or money to do so.

    So according to TFA, "there are really two important take-away messages from this story." Actually there is at least one more. Some people can really be stupid and petty about such things, making mountains out of molehills, and unfortunately, the legal system today favors those people. Oh, and maybe another is that it's getting harder and harder to be a small, independent developer these days because of idiocy like this. Every time you turn around and no matter what you do, there are people out there who want to squash you like a bug, people ranging from other small developers to giant corporations. Everything from "Hey, you used a button, and we use a button, so we're suing you!" to "You thief, you stole my generic-looking woodgrain texture, waaah!"

    1. Re:I wish it were a joke by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.

      Ignorance of the law is no defense. The picture was clearly marked with the Creative Commons license, which means it is free for non-commercial use. That means these guys were not allowed to use it, and they should have contacted the artist for a license to use it in their application, or found a public domain texture (which likely does not exist), or hired an artist to make one for them (probably more expensive than just licensing).

      This is exactly the situation that copyright is needed for. Some guys stole his art (intentionally or no) and made money off it. He has limited monopoly on that texture, and by not licensing with the artist first they are breaking the law. If this is not the situation you want to see copyright for, I dont' know what the hell you want it for at all. This is not some kids downloading movies that they wouldn't buy anyway, it's an artist who has been ripped off.

      Most artists don't make enough for their work as it is, yet you think this is petty?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:I wish it were a joke by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.

      How is it not distinctive? Anyone who has used Delicious Library would look at those screenshots and instantly assume they are looking at a mobile version of DL.

    3. Re:I wish it were a joke by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      He also had his own iPhone app, but got all the images from Amazon (like his desktop app), but Amazon pulled the plug on licensing the pics for the mobile version. So these guys created what amounts to an exact duplicate, down to the very same texture, but I'm assuming they don't get their pictures from Amazon, and if they screwed up on the texture I'm imagining all the other images they use are used illegaly also.

      In other words, this guy gets screwed because he actually follows copyright correctly, and here on slashdot we have people defending the assholes who stole his work.

      Typical.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:I wish it were a joke by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      OK, first off: This texture wasn't used "by mistake". There are thousands of wood textures out there in digital form. This guy wrote a program which both copies the look and feel of delicious library AND uses the ACTUAL same texture. That is no coincidence, it's deliberate disregard for copyright.

      Second, it's not for YOU to say how important the artwork is. As it happens you only place so little value on it because you are ignorant of the development process of Delicious Library. The reason for it's success is because they sweated the details of the interface. That included commissioning (i.e. paying an artist to produce) not just a single wood texture, but several iterations of wood texture, till it looked "just right" in the application. The right shade, the right grain, the right scale. It is a valuable asset.

      Why do you think the crook stole Delicious Library's wood texture, rather then use one of the thousands of other wood textures out there, some of which are free? Because Delicious Library one is the one that looks best for that design.

      I don't expect you'll understand any of this though. You sound like a freetard.

    5. Re:I wish it were a joke by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ignorance of the law is no defense.

      No, but there is such a thing as "reasonable perspective." This guy is so worked up about a frickin' woodgrain texture that he's wanting to sue for losses, and since that would actually cost some money, instead resorts to calling the other developer a thief? I don't care if they did knowingly swipe the texture, that's stupid, plain and simple.

      Do you ever speed on a highway? Technically, you're breaking the law every time you do. How would you like it if a police officer decided that he just plain doesn't like you? He stakes out your house, and every time you go 56 in a 55, he dings you with a ticket. Even more, the judge doesn't like you either, so you don't get stuck with a minor violation, you get charged with reckless driving and have to go to jail.

      It was a frickin' woodgrain texture. The appropriate response would have been to just let it slide. The "I'm irritated" response would have been to e-mail the developer and said, "Hey, that's my texture, please remove it from your app." His actual response, though, is stupid and petty.

      Most artists don't make enough for their work as it is

      Yeah, because I'm sure that's why people were using these applications. Not just because of the woodgrain texture, but because of that specific woodgrain texture. Any other woodgrain texture would have made both the original application and the iPhone app pieces of crap. People are seeing that specific woodgrain texture on the iPhone app and thinking, "The app is just okay, but that texture is so... beautiful...

      Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.

    6. Re:I wish it were a joke by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.

      Yeah... except... it kinda is about a work of art. While a woodgrain pattern is simple and not entirely that interesting, it's still a copyrighted image and protected the same way as a painting or a photograph.

      Your speeding example is also apples-to-oranges. The key element is that a speeding isn't something done against someone else, it's just violating a code in a book. If I walked into your house and took your favorite pair of scissors, I have a feeling you'd be pissed. I mean, seriously, I didn't touch the TV or the computer, it's a just a stupid pair of scissors. What right do you have to be pissed off about it?

    7. Re:I wish it were a joke by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Except you might not actually have taken his pair of sciccors. As another poster pointed out:
      You might have asked someone to borrow a pair of sciccors and that someone gave you a stolen pair of sciccors. How would you know?

      The correct response would be to contact you to inform you that i believed the pair of sciccors to be my stolen pair. Give you chance to explain how you got it. Not run a nationwide smear campaign.

    8. Re:I wish it were a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would you expect me to take you to court in an attempt to bankrupt you over a pair of scissors? Would you even expect me to mention it as a reasonable course of action that I would be within my rights to take?

      No. That would be a pretty extreme over-reaction. Just like it is in this case.

      As an aside to this point - does no-one really feel that this is where copyright law has just gotten sooo stupid that its not even amusing any more? I actually find it quite galling we are referring to the creator of a wood-grain pattern as an artist at all - let alone suggesting that he should have absolute rights over every use of said pattern. At the very least there HAS to be some pattern out there, that's so close to this one, that could be considered as proof of prior existence. I'm going to start digging out my childhood drawings and seeing who I can sue for infringements.

    9. Re:I wish it were a joke by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I actually find it quite galling we are referring to the creator of a wood-grain pattern as an artist at all - let alone suggesting that he should have absolute rights over every use of said pattern. At the very least there HAS to be some pattern out there, that's so close to this one, that could be considered as proof of prior existence. I'm going to start digging out my childhood drawings and seeing who I can sue for infringements.

      You're confusing copyrights with patents. His copyright only covers his particular drawing. If you had another drawing, you'd have copyright over that too.

      There may be a debate about how simple something can be whilst still being copyrightable, but it's not an issue of how close his drawing is to other drawings. The problem, AIUI, isn't that these people used a "similar" image, the allegation is that they used his image.

    10. Re:I wish it were a joke by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Your speeding example is also apples-to-oranges.

      The apples here that we're comparing is doing something that is in a very nitpicky technical sense wrong, but that the practical consequences of which are negligible. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that.

      If I walked into your house and took your favorite pair of scissors...

      I'd probably be a bit irate. Not so much because you took my scissors, but because you walked into my house.

      If I found out that some coworker I don't know took my scissors from my cube, though, I'd probably send them an e-mail saying something like, "Hey, I'd like my scissors back." Or if it's something piddly like in this case, say a pencil or a few pieces of paper, I'd just let it drop without even doing that, because I really don't care, and it means more to me to not be known as that prick at the office who flies off the handle because someone took a pencil.

      What I wouldn't do, though, is post on a public website that you're a thief, and how I wish that I could sue you for non-compensatory damages, so I'm just going to try to embarrass and shame you instead.

      Because even though in a very technical sense I might be correct, that would be something an asshole would do.

    11. Re:I wish it were a joke by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.

      Two words: Apple User.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:I wish it were a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking stupid.
      Someone stole his shit - he's allowed to call him a thief.
      If you steal from me - do I have to call you privately and ask for my stuff back before I can call you a thief? No. You fucking retard.

  22. Re:Who cares, why are you promoting this story by tyrione · · Score: 1

    This guy develops proprietary software for a proprietary platform. He doesn't care about freedom, he cares about control. We should pay him no heed that he whines about a wood grain texture (real original there buddy).

    He's whining people are integrating this texture in their proprietary iPhone apps being sold at the proprietary iPhone story by the notorious proprietary monolith, Apple.

    The story should be: Hoarder hoards, and then when gets hoarded by a hoarder, cries out in pain and tries to Hoard more.

    p.s. he's free to make non-free software just as I'm free to never ever use his software.

    Grow up. The guy paid an artist to make that look 'n feel. To have to taken freely and put into other applications should be challenged.

  23. Let's be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's not a wood grain texture, it's a faux wood grain texture of the type you might find printed on cheap, tacky veneer. Presumably, shipping a version of this software with a bitmapped texture that approximates real wood would cost more. So how much wood would a woodchuck chuck to simply store metadata in the filesystem? Just think of how many virtual trees (oil in the veneer case) we'd be saving when nobody needs such silly apps.

  24. Silly by Demonantis · · Score: 1
    I don't think the author of TFA knows much Copyright law;

    And, yes, these tweets were reproduced with permission.

    The tweets are facts directly cited from the source. It could be argued the guy has no copyright claim to them in this context. No wonder the US's Copyright system is broke. The people that talk about it don't even understand it fully.

  25. Funny by BatGnat · · Score: 1

    But "Technically Legal" even said he had not registered the picture, which is required in America.

    I am upset by the whole thing. I wanted to see have his day in court, and at the last minute "Mother Nature" or "God" shows up as a witness for the defense...

    1. Re:Funny by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      But "Technically Legal" even said he had not registered the picture, which is required in America. I am upset by the whole thing. I wanted to see have his day in court, and at the last minute "Mother Nature" or "God" shows up as a witness for the defense...

      You don't have to register a copyright, but it lets you pursue statutory damages.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  26. Re:What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1
    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  27. In Soviet America: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter expose developer to copyright infringers.

    Yours In Ufa,
    K. Trout

  28. Re:Who cares, why are you promoting this story by bonch · · Score: 1

    What a dumb Slashdot post. Developing proprietary software for a proprietary platform doesn't affect your freedom in any way, shape, or form. It also has nothing to do with control. You even confirm this when you later write that you're free not to use his software. What you're really doing is mindlessly leaning on the word "freedom" as a cheap emotional tie-in to bolster some wild-eyed opposition you have to commercial software, as if someone who sells software is somehow opposed to freedom. You repeatedly use the word "proprietary" under the premise that it's something bad, as if you're some college dorm room denizen who read a FSF manifesto one night and decided all commercial software is "evil." What a stupid position.

    Without actually explaining why, you tell us that Wil Shipley is greedy for going after people who are ripping off custom artwork in an application he sells to make a living. Delicious Library is well-known in the Mac software market for its interfaces. If those people want their own woodgrain artwork, they should stop being leeches and make their own instead of copying artwork made by artists at Delicious Library.

    It's no wonder you posted as an Anonymous Coward. That someone modded up you as Insightful instead of properly marking it down as a Troll is the most distressing. Someone actually deemed your opinion valuable and worthy of spreading to others as an insight. Not only is your post idiotic for criticizing someone who's putting a stop to people ripping him off, it also suggests it's okay for people to be lazy and not do their own work.

    On top of all that, the GPL relies on copyright. I have no doubt you would bash someone who "stole" copyrighted code and violated the GPL. The hypocrisy is astronomical.

  29. Re:Woodgrain texture? BFD by bonch · · Score: 1

    Another Anonymous Coward bashing this story. I'm beginning to suspect you and the other ACs are some of the people who were found to be ripping off the artwork...

    The artwork was developed by Delicious Monster artists.

  30. Re:What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? by bonch · · Score: 1

    Huh? 2.2 came out recently.

  31. Re:Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people by The+Moof · · Score: 1

    But really, I've never heard of a web designer getting a budget to purchase high grade professional images.

    Serious web design companies do (or at least should) have a subscription to some sort of stock photography provider. It's not usually something that comes up when talking with clients. It helps protect clients from complaints about copyright/usage infringements. Think about the great press you'd get if you built a site for a client, and they get sued for copyright infringement because of images you found in your Google search.

  32. He purchased a license to do exactly this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indirectly, he did - he's got a license to exactly this from Amazon:
    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1369741&cid=29431009

  33. Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    For this guy to whine about "theft" and "losses" is wonderfully short-sighted.

    Instead, if I'd been in his position (ie a tiny independent software developer making what is probably about $5 a month from their software) I'd have contact them and congratulated them on their taste, then asked them to credit me with the fact that they I'd created that background. Bingo! Instant GOOD publicity as opposed to promptly making myself look like a whinging tool.

    "Oh, you hired Wil Shipley? Isn't he that guy who always beefs about 'intellectual property' and stuff?" "Rilly?" "Yah, just google him" "OMG! We better kiss him off before he gives us some kind of hassle about making him work out of hours or something!"

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 1

      If you think Wil Shipley is making "probably about $5 a month from their software" you've clearly never heard of him.

      Put it this way, he's currently selling his super charged Lotus pending delivery of his Tesla roadster.

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    2. Re:Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So he is a whiner and has bad taste.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Wil Shipley isn't someone who needs to care about people hiring him. Nor does he care what you think of him. He has people begging to work for him, and willing to do it for no salary, just the experience.

  34. Sounds to me... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement. Feeling kind of sore over it, he's decided that if some anal third-party treats him like that, he might as well treat everyone else like that, too.

    Problem is, his anger is misdirected. Getting all nasty with this guy over something so piddly in no way gets back at Amazon for whatever wrong, real or perceived, they rained down on him.

    He had his iPhone app pulled, so he'll be damned if he lets someone else have their app out there, and this is just a convenient, lame excuse.

    But that's just how he comes across to me.

    1. Re:Sounds to me... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement.

      Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it. Unlike these other guys, who flatout ignore copyright and get defended here on slashdot, even though this is a clear case of why copyright is necessary.

      I think it's more about, you know, someone else illegaly using his art.

      If you've ever known an artist, you'd already know that even excellent artists don't make shit for their work. Stealing copyright is a very big deal because artists need every little red cent they can get to survive. This is what copyright was designed for, protecting people in situations like this so they will have a reason to create more. Granted this guy is probably doing just fine, but he is simply one of the ones who has made it.

      If we start allowing people to get away with copyright infringement on legitimate works, fewer people will make art, and the world will be poorer for it.

      I still can't understand why you people don't get that this is exactly why copyright was invented in the first place. This, right here. This is it.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Sounds to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no.. this is Slashdot...

      That artist is supposed to ask a 4-figure sum for the little graphics he does from whoever contracts him, and then completely assume that because it was either digital to begin with or could easily be digitized, that its value then dropped to zero and should thus just release it under a free/libre license.

      The counter-argument to your stating that 'fewer people will make art' is that, with the advent of computers, more people 'make art' now than ever - and many -do- choose to already license them pretty freely.. see e.g. flickr, youtube, etc. where many images -are- posted with a "(cc) BY" license.

      Oh, and also assume somebody would be crazy enough to pay the 4-figure sum.. unless it's a major work.

    3. Re:Sounds to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS you are a moronic asshat. He was never violating a TOS. Amazon changed their policy regarding use of their data by mobile devices by 3rd parties. It was allowed and licensed and then it was not.

      It has nothing to do with this situation and his complaint.

    4. Re:Sounds to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we start allowing people to get away with copyright infringement on legitimate works, fewer people will make art, and the world will be poorer for it.

      Wait - if we let more people create stuff (whether we let them use existing stuff as a base or not) then we will end up with less stuff?

      Sorry but you're going to need some actual research or possibly even a hypothesis based in fact to back this statement up.

      Just cause you wouldn't create anything without substantial monetary reimbursement doesn't mean that applies to everyone else, or even anyone else.

  35. Vladimir Syrkine cracker/pirate, with mugshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?no_d2=1&threshold=-1&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=1358995&cid=29321527&pid=29321527

    Here's one scumbag's capture

    http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=1334140&postcount=6

    (removed by xda since they like the guy and what he does, I leave the link for the hell of it)

    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241557&cid=19649963

    Saw this on pocketinformat.com and slashdot

    http://www.pocketinformant.com/Forums/index.php?s=7c5317a05ae84814ac6bb4ab9a83e2ea&showtopic=11368&s t=0&p=61900&#entry619003

    cracker iFalleni
    aka Fallen
    aka F/\LLEN
    aka Syrkine, Vladimir
    aka Vladimir Syrkine
    russian living in australia, undergrad at university of sydney (honor roll according to univ.)

    vsyr4253@it.usyd.edu.au

    vsyr4253@mono.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au

    As of 27-Jun-2007 (one day after this first posted) Vladimir Syrkine
    has gone into hiding. Vladimir Syrkine had cracked and distributed 100s of software titles before being caught.

    pirate mmtorrent
    formerly pirate aBroad
    formerly pirate bathrinath
    formerly pirate sertoli
    aka Anderson Barbosa de Oliveira
    aka Anderson Barbosa
    aka Anderson B Oliveira
    aka Andros
    aka androabo
    aka mike terr
    aka Barbol
    aka tttsmith
    aka bathrinath

    As of July 2008 Anderson Barbosa de Oliveira is using the alias mmtorrent. He may also still be using the alias aBroad, which he has for more than a year, but only sporadically as that alias is mainly used by him as he tries to cover his tracks: all bathrinath warez uploads he's done the past year (1000s) were changed to the alias aBroad, though board software being what it is, he's not been successful in doing much covering up.

    As of 27-Jul-2007 (one month after this first posted) Anderson Barbosa de Oliveira (androabo) uses bathrinath as his alias/aka. androabo has pirated more than 1000 software titles in the last year. He continues distributing warez to this very day, as he has every day for many years.

    living in brazil

    andersonbarbosa@cardiol.br

    Know them? They have pirated your stuff. Google them to see what it is these two hoods do.

    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241557&cid=19649963
    Reply to This

    Re:Symantec closes in on Vladimir Syrkine, cracker (Score:1, Offtopic)
    by negRo_slim (636783) on Saturday September 05, @03:50AM (#29321575) Homepage
    I thought the Fallout3 immersion factor was quite hi due to it's sound and lighting.Reply to This
    Parent

    Re:Symantec closes in on Vladimir Syrkine, cracker (Score:0)

    Mugshot

    http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9808/crackerifallenivladimir.jpg

  36. Yeah, but not this time by xant · · Score: 1

    > Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

    Isn't this exactly an example of the stick working better than the carrot? What he actually used was a stick, and it worked. You're hypothesizing that he could have used a carrot, but it would not have worked any better than immediate success.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  37. Um? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Is it normal behaviour when nicking someone's images to also start following them on Twitter?

  38. Re:What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    I've just started delicious library up after a couple of months where I haven't used it. It's notifying me of a new version: 2.2. V2.0 came out earlier this year, and there's been multiple minor releases since then.

    WTF are you talking about?

  39. This is Slashdot. Get with the program!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're stealing shit: copyright = bad
    If you're getting shit stolen from you = copyright = good

  40. In 3...2...1... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    In 3...2...1... queue the replies about how twitter is only good if you want to know every time someone takes a crap, so what the hell is the point anyway... .

  41. Don't accuse right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the guy should have posted this all over Twitter?

  42. Priorities by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wish he'd spend less time Twittering and blogging and more time fixing the bugs in Delicious Library 2 that have been there since the beta. There's like, what, one update a year for that application? I don't even bother running it any more.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even bother running it any more.

      I'm still trying to figure out what the heck it's useful for. Cataloging my media library? I have a text file for that. If I need to get fancier, I'll use a spreadsheet. Hell, iTunes has my whole music collection taken care of. Like so many small-time Mac applications, this seems like eye candy desperately looking for, and failing to find, a problem to solve.

      I have a licensed copy of Delicious Library 2, and I spent about 2 minutes with it before sending it to the crap bin. It came as part of a bundle where 3 useful applications made the whole bunch worthwhile, but the other 10 or so are useless crap like this one.

  43. "President"? by zlel · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if I would consider this country democratic.

  44. streisand effect by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    Wow, that woodgrain texture is sweet! I'm *so* gonna use that.

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  45. Should've contacted Apple by bXTr · · Score: 1

    Why didn't he just ask Apple to pull the offending apps from the App Store? They've done it for less arbitrary reasons and with much flimsier evidence.

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
  46. It's not Theft, it's Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If something is stolen then the original owner no longer has it. In this case, someone else has used and defiled his copyrighted image without his permission, but he still has it, so it's more like they Raped his Intellectual Property.

    (It'd be great if this term caught on. Then there could be headlines like "Dead Man Rapes $15 Trillion Worth of MP3s".)

  47. I'll see your bullshit and raise you one... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it.

    I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.

    He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April in spite of Amazon clearly stating, "You will not, without our express prior written approval...use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device." He didn't pull his app until July 7.

    From TFA:

    Amazon gave D-M an ultimatum: pull the iPhone app, or lose the API access for the desktop version of Library.

    (Emphasis mine)

    In other words, he broke the terms of his agreement with Amazon, one that he probably figured was kind of insignificant and not worth getting worked up over, and they grossly overreacted by threatening him.

    Kind of like how, you know, the developer who used his frickin' woodgrain texture was in minor violation of his copyright, something they probably figured was kind of insignificant (and that it's quite possible they weren't even aware of) and not worth getting worked up over, and he grossly overreacted by pulling out this "I'll Sue Ya!" bullshit and resorting to kindergarten name-calling instead.

    If you've ever known an artist, you'd already know that even excellent artists don't make shit for their work.

    ...And then the bullshit got really thick.

    I might agree with you on this point if the woodgrain texture--and I mean that specific woodgrain texture--were an integral part of his application. If it were somehow unique in some way that made that specific woodgrain texture scream, "This is Delicious Library!" As it is, it's just a plain ol' generic-looking woodgrain texure. If he spent more than ten minutes on creating the texture or paid more than $0.50 or so for it off a stock art site, he's an idiot. As it is, it's more like Ruby Tuesday suing a customer who posts a picture they took in one of their restaurants because the picture happened to capture the wood grain on one of their tables in the background. "Waaah! Copyright infringement! Furniture makers don't make shit, and it's because he--gasp!--took a picture!!!

    By the way, look closely at this screenshot of Delicious Library posted on his site. Specifically, the black-and-white photo in the upper right corner. See that Dolby logo? That's trademarked, you know, and I'd bet that he didn't pay Dolby to use it. Look at his home page and notice all of the references to iPhone, iTunes, OS X, etc. Notice how he doesn't put any trademark symbol or registration mark after them? I also don't see any kind of "iPhone/iTunes/iWhatever is a registered trademark of Apple Inc." disclaimer. Technically, that's a violation, and Apple could sue him. Or better yet, let's just publicly shame him and call him a thief, the stealing bastard!

    Bullshit indeed. Let's just crucify them all, shall we? Because that's obviously what these laws are for!

  48. "take home messages" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that kdawson's posts always sound faggy? Am I supposed to believe that it's always the fault of the people he's supposedly quoting?

    Just wondering.

  49. Talk is cheap? by cassador · · Score: 1

    "And, really, theyâ(TM)re not making enough money for me to regain my losses." What kind of losses is he talking about? Given the conclusion of the story, Tom's apology has the same monetary value as Wil's losses.

  50. We need more public humiliation by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

    People who act badly need to be called on it. If public humiliation is the only avenue then do so. People who don't call others who act badly also need to be called on that. The 2nd grade crap about not being a "tattle tale" stays around and Kitty Genovese ends up dead because no one wanted to get involved.

  51. Shipley is a BITCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he just is. I would not even WANT TO copyright its material. So why did the person do that??