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."
Image off of his website.
Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?
in this case?
Best Slashdot Co
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.
Copyright didn't really come into play.
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.
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.
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.
I know the guy who made the blue frog on the Azureus startup screen.... and it wasn't for Azureus.
lol.
...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*
"Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants on Twitter"
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
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.
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
Is that you, Super Volt?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'm confused. How did your pants get on Twitter?
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
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.
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
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.
...
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?
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.
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:
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:
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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...
Today: never.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Hence my sig.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
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.
Huh? 2.2 came out recently.
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.
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?"
"Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants on Twitter"
That's what SHE said!
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.
> 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.
Is it normal behaviour when nicking someone's images to also start following them on Twitter?
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?
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... .
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.
I'm not sure if I would consider this country democratic.
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."
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.
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:
(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.
...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!
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.
"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.
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!
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.