Inspired or ripped?

[anotheralias]

Elizabeth, the problem I ran into with copyright infringement wasn't that I couldn't prove it, the problem was that it would have cost me a fortune to fight it - and since they weren't making money off of using it I wouldn't have gotten anything out of the suit but the right to tell them to remove it. Has that changed?

And (on a different note) while I am first in line to protest someone lifting someone else's work and calling it their own, I do believe that there's a difference between that and being inspired by something. If we weren't allowed to be inspired/influenced by other works of art, entire movements in art would have ground to a halt after the first couple of paintings.

 

[Forsaken]

Elizabeth, the problem I ran into with copyright infringement wasn't that I couldn't prove it, the problem was that it would have cost me a fortune to fight it - and since they weren't making money off of using it I wouldn't have gotten anything out of the suit but the right to tell them to remove it. Has that changed?

And (on a different note) while I am first in line to protest someone lifting someone else's work and calling it their own, I do believe that there's a difference between that and being inspired by something. If we weren't allowed to be inspired/influenced by other works of art, entire movements in art would have ground to a halt after the first couple of paintings.

Inspiration implies that you've looked at their site, and then created something new from what they've done, therefore you have an original work.

Ripping is where you copy or steal work, and pass it off as your own.

The style that was inspired by elements is just that, inspired. The one 'inspired' by Lustrous is to similar to be inspiration, and would be considered a rip by the majority of designers, even if it is based on the stock software.

 

[anotheralias]

Forsaken... but there is a difference between opinion and law.

 

[CyberAP]

Forsaken do you even understand the difference between STEALING and COPYING?

 

[Kevin]

Forsaken do you even understand the difference between STEALING and COPYING?

Do you?

 

[CyberAP]

Do you?

Yes I am.

 

[Forsaken]

Forsaken... but there is a difference between opinion and law.

The difference between inspiration and ripping are opinion, and generally depends on the designer.

Can you honestly claim that CyberAP didn't try to copy the style from ForumThemes? Keep in mind his original post states its a 'conversion' and it originally included the same icons used by the style, which have now been removed.

And the previous post didn't have to do about law, it was just differentiating ripping and inspiration.

Yes I am.

You copied someones work; that is stealing in the design world.

You did not original create the design. All you did was take the original work, and then port it to XenForo, without the permission of the original designer.

If you cannot define that as theft, I'd love for your definition, I really would.

 

[Kevin]

Yes I am.

Based upon your earlier response...

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.

... then no, you absolutely do not understand the difference at all.

 

[CyberAP]

You copied someones work; that is stealing in the design world.

You did not original create the design. All you did was take the original work, and then port it to XenForo, without the permission of the original designer.

If you cannot define that as theft, I'd love for your definition, I really would.

So I think your answer was 'No'.
Stealing - when you take someones property to make profit.
Copying - when you take someones property and make no profit with it.
Enough trolling for today. No facts, no laws.

 

[Blandt]

Based upon your earlier response...... then no, you absolutely do not understand the difference at all.

No I think he does

Let say you write a novel on something somewhere that doesn't give you the exclusive right over that something somewhere. I can write about that same something in the exact 'somewhere'
I copied you but i didn't steal your text : that's the DIFFERENCE

 

[Kim]

Kids - Just don't do it. Don't directly copy anyone else's design.

To all those claiming there is no Copyright are factually WRONG... go and read about Intellectual Property before you comment.

Trademarking is legally an entirely different thing to Copyright, and trademarking can only be applied to BRANDING of a product, not the product it's self... in the case of actual physical items you can apply for a Patent to your design.
However... neither of these things apply to Creative works of Art at all. Those are protected by the Internationally agreed standard of "Copyright".

As in ... the owner of the "Copyright" retains all the rights to that work.. including the RIGHT TO COPY hence the name, Copyright.

Copyright is automatically granted to the original creator of a Creative Work... be that a Book, an Article you read online, or a Forum Style/Skin.

 

[TheBoss]

So just where does intellectual property start and end...??

Can someone define that grey line & who actually decides that one person or collective is correct in their summing up....

I think the answer may depend on which side of the BIG POND you are living & I say that not to start another infight, its just a fact that society in USA or influenced areas sue each other over the least little thing. Because they claim this or that is their property or they burnt their mouth on a McDonalds coffee for god sake... Didnt their burning hand holding the paper cup tell them the contents where a triffle warmer than tepid... They were awarded thousands if I am not mistaken... A similar attempt by someone in the UK was laughed out of court and the claiment was locked up for a week or so for wasting judicial time. Europe is a lot more Liberal in such matters as claiming rights on something like intellectual rights & property. And rightly so , every person on this planet has an intellectual idea at least once in their life time , are we all going to start sueing each other because your neighbour had a similar idea at some stage...

I think some people need to get down off the moral high ground as NOT ONE person ownes a colour , hex value or not...
Whatever name you give in your religon to the Supreme Being IS the sole owner and creator of ALL around us...

I have bought probably 50+ skins from the big skinning houses for vBulletin over the years and I never once paid for the colours , I paid for the work , time and effort for the skin I bought at that time... For their own brand of genius even in bringing a colour scheme together in a good layout, work I am not skilled enough to do, but never for any HEX values...

Does intellectuall property end at graphics in the online world...???

Does it include actuall scripts and forum scripts..?? If not.. Why not...???

Be carefull how you answer the above, last line as IPB may have a spy here watching.... LOL

Good debate though....

Regards...

 

[Kim]

Dear God (or any other higher being you subscribe to)

There is no line.. grey or otherwise, where you live either side of the Pond makes no difference either, as all developed nations are signatories to IP protection agreements, and I actually live no where near said pond.

As I said, please go and read what Intellectual property rights are before commenting, as it is very clear that many people here have no idea what IP in general, and Copyright in particular actually is.

Bringing up spurious litigation cases is completely irrelevant.

Europe is soft on IP enforcement... wrong! Germany has the strongest enforcement of IP rights in the developed world, and are leading the way for the rest of Europe and the world to follow.

No one has claimed ownership of a colour it is the overall design that is being referred to. (Miko brought up a company had Trademarked a colour) but they don't own it.. they have the sole rights to use it for branding purposes.. see kids... Trademark.. not Copyright.

My High Horse and I take this very seriously... and when people with zero actual legal training spread factually incorrect information it annoys the bejebus out of me.

But yes.. a good debate none the less...

 

[anotheralias]

You copied someones work; that is stealing in the design world.

You did not original create the design. All you did was take the original work, and then port it to XenForo, without the permission of the original designer.

If you cannot define that as theft, I'd love for your definition, I really would.

(Emphasis mine.)

I mentioned the legality vs. opinion because people were being encouraged to file lawsuits, and I hate to see anyone throw their money away on a consultation only to be told that they have no case. Read the copyright laws first and then decide whether to pursue a suit - don't go by opinion on a board, because that has nothing to do with whether you have a case.

Copyright laws don't merely protect the original artist - they protect all artists. Hence why you can't do a stick drawing of a black cat and say "okay, that's copyrighted - nobody else gets to do a stick drawing of a black cat."

 

[CyberAP]

(Miko brought up a company had Trademarked a colour) but they don't own it.. they have the sole rights to use it for branding purposes.. see kids... Trademark.. not Copyright.

Tomorrow I'm opening my new company with blackjack and... and trademark a black color, rgb(0,0,0). The money were just waiting for me!

 

[Kim]

Tomorrow I'm opening my new company with blackjack and... and trademark a black color, rgb(0,0,0). The money were just waiting for me!

Go for it...

...iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffff you have a legitimate claim to the branding uses of rgb(0,0,0)- that is you have spent millions of dollars establishing black as your brand.. then yeah go for a trademark by all means

... and...if you have the millions needed to file the claims against anyone using it.

again... you miss the point completely, I am not defending that.. I think it's bollocks too.

 

[CyberAP]

...iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffff you have a legitimate claim to the branding uses of rgb(0,0,0)- that is you have spent millions of dollars establishing black as your brand.. then yeah go for a trademark by all means

Kazimir Malevich had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich

 

[Forsaken]

No I think he does


Let say you write a novel on something somewhere that doesn't give you the exclusive right over that something somewhere. I can write about that same something in the exact 'somewhere'
I copied you but i didn't steal your text : that's the DIFFERENCE

Your example has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The styles are to similar to say one is inspired from the other, and CyberAP says himself he 'converted' it.

By your example, it would be that you design a Modern Warfare 2 style, and I see it, and I also design a Modern Warfare 2 style, that is -different-, and only the subject is the same.

This situation is that CyberAP saw a style he likes, re-creates it to a near exact degree, and releases it as his own, saying he converted it, without prior permission from the original designer.

(Emphasis mine.)

I mentioned the legality vs. opinion because people were being encouraged to file lawsuits, and I hate to see anyone throw their money away on a consultation only to be told that they have no case. Read the copyright laws first and then decide whether to pursue a suit - don't go by opinion on a board, because that has nothing to do with whether you have a case.

Copyright laws don't merely protect the original artist - they protect all artists. Hence why you can't do a stick drawing of a black cat and say "okay, that's copyrighted - nobody else gets to do a stick drawing of a black cat."

I said 'in the design world' because the situation in question is regarding a style that he recreated and released. I have no clue whether or not he has original files.

I am not suggesting anyone take legal action, nor would I. I am only discussing the difference of ripping and inspired design, and that CyberAP has taken another persons work as his own.

You're right, a stick figure of a black cat cannot be copyrighted. But you can however copyright an original work, that can be proven to be original .

 

[Kim]

Kazimir Malevich had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich

My dear, I have no interest in debating with you something I completely agree is bogus... please stop trying to infer that I support the trademarking of colours.

I do not.

Get back to the copyright issues please.

 

[TheBoss]

@ Dragonfly.. You taking some of my words totally out of context and your missing the bigger picture..
But your one of the very talented skin designers here so I expected a similar response to the one I got...

I have never claimed to be a lawyer / solicitor or have any knowledge of IP enforcement. Until this debate I didnt give it any thought at all , it just didnt enter my intellectual mind at any stage of my 50+ years. That being said I have a high enough IQ to have an opinion of MY own just as you or anyone else does for that matter. And for the record , I respect your opinion.

I am a webhost owner / domain registrar , who over the years has complied with copyright infringements in the correct manner , the same applies to warez / nulled scripts. If I get a legitimate complaint then the offending item or hosting is revoked until rectified.

What gets my back up is the fact that the whole and sole purpose of forums in the first place was for communication between similar minded people to SHARE knowledge and help each other, This thread only confirms to me that there will ALWAYS be a minority who have either lost sight of that ethos or never knew it to begin with..

Regards..