Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers On Twitter 164
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."
Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Image off of his website. [delicious-monster.com]
Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
"President"? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?
More to the point: did he try to pass them off as his own? No.
Re:Hmm (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 [wordpress.com]
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.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
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.)
The Image (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Image (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..
Re:The Image (Score:5, 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 [lazylightning.org], 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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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 [lazylightning.org], 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.
Re:The Image (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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).
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Um? (Score:2)
Is it normal behaviour when nicking someone's images to also start following them on Twitter?
You beat me to it. (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, but not this time (Score:2)
> 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.
Re:The Image (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
Best. Answer. Ever.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (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 [twitter.com]
Re:The Image (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/ [tuaw.com]
Re:The Image (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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?
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (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.
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Image (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you seen this site? http://www.shelfari.com/ [shelfari.com]
The look is very similar. I wonder who took from whom?
Re:The Image (Score:2)
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.
I wish it were a joke (Score:4, 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:
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!"
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
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?
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
Two words: Apple User.
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
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.
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
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.
Re:I wish it were a joke (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Are those fair use applications?
Pretty sure the answer to that is "yes, of course".
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
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?
Priorities (Score:5, 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.
So is copyright good or bad (Score:2)
in this case?
This is more about plagiarism (Score:2)
Copyright didn't really come into play.
Re:This is more about plagiarism (Score:2)
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?
Re:This is more about plagiarism (Score:2)
Well, to be accurate, plagiarism is a facet of copyright. You can't have anti-plagiarism laws without some form of ownership of information.
Re: This is more about plagiarism (Score:2)
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.
Slashbot response (Score:3, Funny)
Take down notice: BAD
Software developer: GOOD
Copyrights: BAD
Twitter: GOOD
Lawsuit: BAD
Caught red-handed: GOOD
==Head Assplodes=l
Re:Slashbot response (Score:2)
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.
Lol.. reminds me of a friend. (Score:4, Interesting)
I know the guy who made the blue frog on the Azureus startup screen.... and it wasn't for Azureus.
lol.
He's complaining about... (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*
Let's be fair (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.
Re:He's complaining about... (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 [delicious-monster.com]. And he's already written an iPhone app [delicious-monster.com] - except Amazon decided to yank all mobile licenses [tuaw.com] 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.
Sounds to me... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sounds to me... (Score:2)
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.
I'll see your bullshit and raise you one... (Score:2)
I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.
He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April [delicious-monster.com] in spite of Amazon clearly stating [amazon.com], "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 [tuaw.com].
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! [youtube.com]" 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 [delicious-monster.com] 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 [delicious-monster.com] 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!
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:5, 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 [tutorio.com]
Free windows program for making wood textures: http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/ww_overview.htm [spiralgraphics.biz]
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.
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:2)
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?
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/3966821025 [twitter.com]
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 [netwalk.be]
( 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 [delicious-monster.com]
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.
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:2)
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.
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:2)
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.
Re:He's complaining about... (Score:2)
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.
well this is boring (Score:2)
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.
Plan to copyright all icons (Score:3, 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.
Re:Plan to copyright all icons (Score:2)
Re:Plan to copyright all icons (Score:2)
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.
Re:Plan to copyright all icons (Score:2)
Re:Plan to copyright all icons (Score:2)
About 1.18973149536e4932 images. Slashdot won't let me post the whole number.
Re:Plan to copyright all icons (Score:2)
What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? (Score:2)
Re:What? Delicious Library isn't public domain? (Score:2)
Today: never.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
Hence my sig.
Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people do (Score:1)
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.
Re:Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people (Score:2)
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.
Silly (Score:2)
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.
Funny (Score:1)
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...
Re:Funny (Score:2)
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.
Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different (Score:2)
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!"
Re:Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yehsee - here's where I'd do this different (Score:2)
So he is a whiner and has bad taste.
In 3...2...1... (Score:2)
Should've contacted Apple (Score:2)
Re:Twitter (Score:3, 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.
Re:Twitter (Score:2)
Re:Twitter (Score:1)
Re:Twitter (Score:2)
"Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants on Twitter"
That's what SHE said!
Re:Twitter (Score:1)
Re:Twitter (Score:2)
Is that you, Super Volt?
Re:Twitter (Score:3, 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 [wikipedia.org] everywhere.
Most people seriously underestimate just how much astroturfers [wikipedia.org] = stealth/undercover marketers [wikipedia.org] = shills [wikipedia.org] = low lifes [womma.org] 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" [wikipedia.org] are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion. Anonymous commercial speech should be illegal.
Re:Twitter (Score:2)
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!
Re:Twitter (Score:2)
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.
Re:i frequently post scathing attacks on the riaa (Score:3, 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.
Re:Who cares, why are you promoting this story (Score:2)
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.
Re:Who cares, why are you promoting this story (Score:2)
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.