cleared your cookies, did ya?

I think it's absolutely redundant and pointless.

Permissions and all that are passe. If I REALLY want to get a skin up and running, I'd rathr collaborate with said author and do something kickass rather than recycling the same old image till dear kingdom come.
Otherwise I'd just do a SCREENSHOT with customized versions that I would distribute only in PRIVATE or public after having original author's permission.


No excuse to any of that I think.

I only download. Or at least I used to.

The Logon-gallery has "caught up" to the bootskin-gallery concerning the "quality" of the skins available. I just completely lost any interest in it.

The wallpaper-gallery seems to be heading the same way...

What bugs me (being just a simple end-user), is that I usually check for new skins by looking at the "Newest" list, and have to sieve through all this "quantity instead of quality"-work in order to get to the real good stuff.
Even more importantly, I seem to miss some of the good stuff, which really bugs me.

...and shouldn't the term: "it is ok, as long as Permissions are obtained and included" oblige the above mentioned work to be reviewed and the work either to be updated with said permissions or be pulled?

no tried IE

nice

WWW Link

From the poster in response to being told the content is copyrighted: "Read the description, I gave them credit."

No permission.


WWW Link

From the poster in response to being asked if he had permission from the wallpaper artist:
"The Artist got " Full " credit here on this one"

No permission.

boss ...the situation with dreams is that provided the animation is no more than 15 seconds [eg extracted from a video] it's deemed 'fair use', unless determined otherwise by the owner of source.

The logon, however is removed, as there's no permission.txt to indicate consent for wall use...

Thanks Jafo, and sorry, I missed the 15 second ruling.

and who exactly has determined this?

Allowing copyrighted work just to fill a new library so Stardock can profit from it is wrong. In a way, WC has a responsibility to police art. Looking the other way for 15 seconds makes us a criminal also.

Apple's terms of use are very clear. There is no use...period. I understand the need for flexibility to allow content on WC but it's just wrong to make up rules to support copyright infringement. I am really surprised to hear you say this Jafo.

If someone steals a car, are they allowed to drive it for a couple miles before they are guilty of a crime?

Is the crime voided if they only take the radio?

Is it the sole responsibility of the owner to find their stolen car? No, that's what the police are for.

In my opinion harboring rips and "mods" makes WC just as guilty as the original ripper. Especially when something has been brought to the intention of administration and it stays in the library.   


Noramlly I hate anaologies but I only had 1 cup of java so far.   

I agree with NT here. This sure sounds like a slippery slope in the ethical department. 14.9 seconds all is well, unless of course the original artist happens by some amazing luck to find the piece and complains. 15.1 seconds, it is a rip ? Ethical slight of hand in my book. A rip is a rip. And who exactly is timing these loops? The same over burdened folks who monitor the permission texts?

I have yet to see an "official" response to Po's questions and wall issues.

Where are you folks headed?

Does anyone know the business term "Enlightened Self Interest"? It can be quite a long road to bankruptcy.

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.

The Dream thing sounds slippery as stated. Does this mean a Master can use the same borrowed 15 second clip, put a price on the skin and split the profit with SD from it as well if they want? If not, then it's okay as long as they don't sell it?

I could see a 15 second clip used in a news cast or documentary or something...for a non-profit purpose,,,but this whole thing seems to be right on the fence and the rules more flexible here than applies to other galleries. Could YouTube avoid it's current lawsuits if all the clips shown were broken down into 15 second clips? I was on Oprah about 8 years ago (don't ask) and had to sign a release to give them permission to allow clips of my interview to be used on any and all newscasts locally and nationally, because 20/20 and my local station had either picked up on the story or wanted to use it to promote the show locally by using the 'local person' angle.

I understand that part of the fair use thing involves the altering or adapting of an image for a different purpose, but the Dream is just the video looped.

I had written when this first came out (Dreams) that MS had it sweet with SD doing what seemed like a lot of the promo and actual leg work on promoting this new feature. Now, I wonder if they just wanted to avoid this whole mess the same way they have closed off their version of YouTube til they figure out how to work out the copyright issues and upload issues to keep from getting sued like YouTube.

curiouser and curiouser

I personally think that if the 15 seconds 'borrowed' is the entire of the dream then it is not acceptable.  The submitter has added no value to the content.

There is also the fact that 15 seconds from a 3 hour video is a smallish amount, but 15 seconds from a 20 second video is the bulk of the original.

From the fair use rules for Dream submissions (https://forums.wincustomize.com/?forumid=429&aid=144934)

Fair Use allows for the limited reuse of copyrighted material so long as it is not done for financial gain of the person reusing the work, nor does it financially harm the original author by denying them sales etc.  In the case of Dream animated wallpapers, users can make limited use of video files created by other authors provided they meet the following requirements:

1. The animations used in the .Dream file is either 15 seconds in length of shorter OR less than 25% of the original video file in length (whichever is shorter).  So if you found a 20 second video you want to use in a Dream, you can use no more than 5 seconds of that video.  Anything else, you are limited to 15 seconds.
2. You provide credit to the original author in the skin comments AND provide a link to your original source.
3. Understand that if the original owner of the work asks us to take it down, provided proof of ownership, we will comply immediately.

Failure to comply with these fair use rules will result in an item being rejected from the submission queue. 

If you find your work is being redistributed here against your wishes, please contact a site admin with some form of proof that you own the original work, and we will remove the offending entry immediately.

Lets see,,25% of a 1280 by 1024 wallpaper is 320 by 256, Im off to plunder somebodies wallpaper gallery,, maybe frogboys.

This whole thing is ridiculous and smacks of double standards.

If I read these rules correctly, I can use 15 sec of anyone's material (provided that that is not more than 25 % of the total) without any permission required (0nly a link to the source) and unless the source complains and can prove ownership, all is fine?

Rule 3 is quite interesting

That is how the Russian rip sites operate. Try proving ownership in Russia.

I repeat, a slippery slope. You actually expect the mods to check the 25% rule, check the 15 sec rule and check the links realizing that they have their hands full with simple permission texts that say, "I have no permission" as noted in the thread. Or will you just wait for someone to complain about unauthorized use. Rippers hope that no one will notice, no one will take the time to complain, no one will be able to properly prove ownership. Is that your hope? I do not imply that it is, but that is what seems indicated by this policy and the impossible monitoring scenario you have set up.

Where's the rating button for "Darned Important Conversation"?

Night Train:You don't have to go any further than the first page of the wallpaper library to pick out a few beautiful examples of cut and paste. I completely understand a wallpaper artist not getting that special feeling for getting a wallpaper approved at WC anymore. 4 years ago , things were different.
~~I just don't get it anymore to be honest - seems only the people that have been around for a long time are the ones that get their skins moderated. Seems a visitor can get 5 Walls tossed up in a row with a half decent rating - the problem is if you actually download some of them and look - the walls are obviously someone else's and have been recolored and pasted on graphics. One wall called " Purple Flower" has an undersized preview - you have to download the wall to really see it - I did. The wall has been cut off on each side and inside the rectangles its obvious that the "paint bucket" tool has dumped black inside rectangle - BUT you can see the white jagged pixels where the bucket didnt color all around all the flowers. This wall received a rating or 3 stars on upload.
How was it rated ? On the undersized preview thats as big as an envelope ? That zip contained 1 wall at1280 x 1024. Their next wall in Gallery the zip contains one wall size: 1600x1401 yes 1401 - not a typo...

Boss: And I'm pretty sure they don't have the time to open every zipped skin or wall to check the permissions either, like the ones mentioned in this thread.
~~~I agree - they do not have time to open every zip - but I DO - and I reported what I found in the zips - NO permission - as stated by the uploader - 2 of the walls were removed yet the 2 others remain. Both that remain have same Text notepad in zip stating this is not their work. " Collage " is the same as the removed wall " Collage 2 " Just that the big yellow flower that was in the center was painted over. "Rainy" still remains even though the author stated this was not their work.
On another Forum post a moderator told me they appreciated the fact that the ' community' takes the time to look out for RIPS and to check for permissions etc .
But what for ? The walls are still there - Its being ignored.
I questioned the fact that RIPS seem to not be very important anymore on another thread - Island Dog replied to me that RIPS were still considered a very important issue...

This really doesn't appear to be true to most of us anymore.
The walls that I reported as having no permission may not seem all that important - but I did give this person the benefit of the doubt..I left them a message on their first wall about the watermarks I saw on their graphics - I told them you cannot use others graphics without permission. They did not reply to my comment there - but did reply to me elsewhere - so they did see what I wrote. So their next 4 walls they include a text notepad stating "the pictures are not my work"

Again - why are the walls still up ?
Why is the question being ignored ?
If you do not want Rips reported - say so - if you want the Gallery full of 1 star walls - say it. Then we can all move along.

These rules are ONLY for animated wallpapers.  And it's 25% of the length (time) of the video.  So if the original video is 12 seconds long, they can only use 3 in a .Dream.

Fair Use in general is pretty well established.  It's under the same rules that we allow fan art.

That's the key here.  If you approach a russian site and ask for your work to be taken down, you'll be ignored.  You come here and we comply.  If we denied everything that even looked like it could have come from somewhere else, the people would just go to the Russian sites and now the original authors have NO recourse at all.  We make all reasonable attempts to limit illegal reuse.  I do in fact check many of the Dream uploads for the 15 second/25% rule.  A great number of entries have been rejected for not following the fair use rules we set out, which are incredibly more restrictive than most other sites that would take the same content.

Exactly...
So, at this point it is logical to assume that it is okay to defy the rules of fair use on this site until the owner/creator of said original work contacts an admin? That is exactly what is happening in the wallpaper gallery now. There have been items brought to the administrations attention that do not meet the criteria outlined. They do NOT have the original author's permission, they do NOT provide links to the original source either.
The items have not been removed.
You can't play favorites with Dream files only, (well you can, but it's setting a horrible example)

Maybe the administration is getting tired of us complaining like this, I don't know. You need to understand that we aren't complaining for the sake of exercising our keyboards. We like it here or we wouldn't pay you every year to renew our software licenses and subscriptions. We once had a unique place to go that seemed to demonstrate good ethics and judgement in most all facets of it's operation. We don't want to see this place turn into another DA or ThemeXP type of site. If that is what you want, then either a reduction or trade off of customers will probably happen to a degree.

Weather it is your intent or not, you ARE giving the impression that your ethics are decreasing as your business grows bigger.

And that seems to be the only thing that matters " Dreams " - the other galleries just don't seem to matter anymore - the fact that half the stuff sits in mod queue for 7 days or until someone mentions it shouldnt be happening but it is. I remember last year a post by a moderator reminding us that there were other applications that needed skinning at WC.

How things have changed.

I do realize this fact but that is where the double standards come in.

Zoomba you have replied twice on this thread and still failed to answer the questions about the previously mentioned wallpapers still being in the library.

.Dreams seems to be the number one priority around here these days.

I do realize this fact but that is where the double standards come in.

Zoomba you have replied twice on this thread and still failed to answer the questions about the previously mentioned wallpapers still being in the library.

.Dreams seems to be the number one priority around here these days.

As far as I personally am concerned....'fair use' is a load of bull...and actually WAS such in Australia...before the latest free-trade agreement between big Bush and Banzai Bush.

US Copyright law [under which Wincustomize.com operates] has provisions for 'fair use' which definitely grey what 'could' have been black and white...but the world would be a very sad, empty place...if absolutely NO derivative [fair use] works could be had...also refer to 'fan art'.

These 'things' called Dreams are a new creature which needs some form of referencing to 'fair use' as with other existing media...so...what was arrived at was/is as Zoomba listed in #114.

Now, as to whether Item #3 is so horrid or not, well, surprise surprise...ALL works uploaded here are subject to that one, not just Dreams.....and, if I remember correctly, everybody applauded its adoption in any other gallery.....as that is why we have moderation in the first place.

Like it or not, the biggest 'noise' in Copyright enforcement/argument/litigation/rule-making is the US....and Wincustomize.com/Stardock is US-based and thus must abide by, and exist within the US interpretation of the Act, and, provided we/they adhere to that within #114 then all is well.   If that situation changes or is found to need change then the Wincustomize.com management will be well placed to address such.

Please don't compare this with that which is found on Russian sites [your example].  The difference is that if and when an author takes issue with something of his posted here it is dealt with.  I personally have chased Russian sites for work removals...and know full-well their response [or lack of]....