Inspired or ripped?

[Kevin]

But that's for a trademark, Kevin. There's a big difference between trademark and copyright.

Oh, absolutely, but the point is/was that there is some type of IP protection available for designs and is not a free-for-all like some in this thread are insinuating.

 

[CyberAP]

Because the design itself is the work of the original creator and is copyrighted.

If I draw a picture using crayons, and you recreate it using oil pastels, that doesn't mean it's your work. You couldn't just copy my drawing without asking my permission first.

Thats the biggest misbelief. Idea is not a copyright, just only her expression. Lustrous is an expression of designers idea. That's why you can't copyright the colors, because you may use whatever you want to create your own expression of an idea.
I think you should read this: http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_idea.htm

 

[anotheralias]

Oh, absolutely, but the point is/was that there is some type of IP protection available for designs and is not a free-for-all like some in this thread are insinuating.

For trademark designs, not copyrighted designs. There is no point in getting people worked up about taking action when you're talking trademark and they're talking about copyright.

 

[Kevin]

For trademark designs, not copyrighted designs. There is no point in getting people worked up about taking action when you're talking trademark and they're talking about copyright.

Well, what they are talking about versus should be talking about are two different things. The point is the same though, that there is indeed IP protection available for designs.

 

[Blandt]

Well, what they are talking about versus should be talking about are two different things. The point is the same though, that there is indeed IP protection available for designs.

No such thing .. unfortunately what we "should talk about" is irrelevant because that's not what the law says. There are things you cannot claim as yours (in simple words)

 

[anotheralias]

Well, what they are talking about versus should be talking about are two different things. The point is the same though, that there is indeed IP protection available for designs.

No, that is not the point at all. The point is, there is protection for trademark designs. Copyright is not the same as Trademark - you can not use them interchangeably.

If you want to help people, post the specific copyright laws and protections - telling them about trademark laws and protections is useless.

 

[Forsaken]

Thats the biggest misbelief. Idea is not a copyright, just only her expression. Lustrous is an expression of designers idea. That's why you can't copyright the colors, because you may use whatever you want to create your own expression of an idea.
I think you should read this: http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_idea.htm

I think you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Design/art fall under intellectual property, and you've basically stolen and 'converted' someone else's property, which is the definition of theft.

 

[Kevin]

No such thing .. unfortunately what we "should talk about" is irrelevant because that's not what the law says. There are things you cannot claim as yours (in simple words)

No such thing what? Surely you aren't trying to say IP design protection doesn't exist? Yes, there are certain things you can claim. There is a reason, for example, why you don't see other bottlers putting their cola in cans that look like Coca-Colas just like there is a reason why, in Australia at least, Cadbury is quite fond of the color purple.

 

[CyberAP]

I think you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Design/art fall under intellectual property, and you've basically stolen and 'converted' someone else's property, which is the definition of theft.

Please send me files that I've stolen.

 

[anotheralias]

No such thing what? Surely you aren't trying to say IP design protection doesn't exist? Yes, there are certain things you can claim. There is a reason, for example, why you don't see other bottlers putting their cola in cans that look like Coca-Colas just like there is a reason why, in Australia at least, Cadbury is quite fond of the color purple.

Because Coca-Cola is a Trademark.

 

[Forsaken]

Please send me files that I've stolen.

The design itself has been stolen, and falls under intellectual property. You have stolen the design (With slight modification), and passed it off as your work, saying you've converted it, without permission of the original designer, to a new platform.

 

[Kevin]

I think you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Design/art fall under intellectual property, and you've basically stolen and 'converted' someone else's property, which is the definition of theft.

Glad to see somebody out there understands this.

 

[Blandt]

No such thing what? Surely you aren't trying to say IP design protection doesn't exist? Yes, there are certain things you can claim. There is a reason, for example, why you don't see other bottlers putting their cola in cans that look like Coca-Colas just like there is a reason why, in Australia at least, Cadbury is quite fond of the color purple.

In fact there are plenty my local grocery store chain are selling their own Cola in a red can with their own logo on it and advertised as Better than CocaCola

People do know the difference you see

 

[Forsaken]

Glad to see somebody out there understands this.

I've been involved with IP lawsuits in the past, as has my dad (Lots of his work that he has done for the movie industry has been stolen and then sold by mass production factories for props).

 

[Blandt]

The design itself has been stolen, and falls under intellectual property. You have stolen the design (With slight modification), and passed it off as your work, saying you've converted it, without permission of the original designer, to a new platform.

The style itself is a stock xF .. it doesn't belong to either if you want to go that route

Stole is not an appropriate word here

 

[Kevin]

In fact there are plenty my local grocery store chain are selling their own Cola in a red can with their own logo on it and advertised as Better than CocaCola

People do know the difference you see

Send an example to Coca-Cola headquarters... they'd love to see it.

 

[Blandt]

Send an example to Coca-Cola headquarters... they'd love to see it.

Any one who lives in TX can confirm this

 

[Kevin]

Any one who lives in TX can confirm this

Oh, I believe you, stuff like that happens all the time. It is just a matter of if & when it catches the attention of the grieved parties.

 

[CyberAP]

The design itself has been stolen, and falls under intellectual property. You have stolen the design (With slight modification), and passed it off as your work, saying you've converted it, without permission of the original designer, to a new platform.

As intellectual property is a 'file'. You mean that I've stolen somebody's files. You blame me that I've stolen intellectual property so please prove your words and show me the files that I've stolen. My style is free you can download the archive and send me the files, otherwise what you are doing is called demagogy.

 

[Elizabeth]

Actually, there is an organization for arts and crafters (designers of forum software fits in there) R.I.G.H.T.S. : Redistribution In Graphics Has To Stop
Intellectual Property for the Creative Arts A good site for the law on graphic art copyright.
Copyright infringement, piracy, fake and counterfeit goods reporting center