Copyright

You need to osbscure more of the wallpaper so that no one can just edit out everything else and reuse it.

Yes I have bee told that but I do not understand why I would need to obscure a screenshot which uses a wallpaper that is posted all over the Internet on many different sites. Does that mean I have to ask permission to use every wallpaper I find on the Internet? if so then why are some allowed and some not? If I find an image on the internet that is available to the public and does not have any contact info or information mentioning anything to to with copyright, how would I know if I could use it or not? I guess more to the point what can be used and what cannot be used because I really do not know. I can submit something and it is approved but a very similar shot is rejected. I can't figure it out.

The point of obscuring the wallpaper is so that someone would have to go to the actual site that the wallpaper was uploaded to in order to download it.  The author may not want people being able to get it from WinCustomize.

This is because you do not hold the copyright for the wall, therefore it must be osbscured for the reason Bebi stated.

Just because an image is all over the net, does not make it public domain. In alot of cases, the people who posted it all over the place may have done so in violation of the original artists copyright.

OK guys I am only trying to figure this out and I understand everything you have said. But that still does not explain why some shots have been approved without a link to the original artist and some have not been allowed. I have posted many shots in the past using a wallpaper I had sitting in my pictures folder for a very long time. I had no link to give even with a search. Yet those have been approved. I guess what I am understanding from your comments is I either need to cover up the image (which totally defeats the purpose of the shot) or not submit any shots unless you are the creator of the wallpaper. Correct? 

well said.

Images found on the net would need to be specifically covered by a GPL/GNU, to be used freely, but even then we typically expect those posting screen shots to obscure them to make extraction difficult for another reason. We have had in the past a few who tried to utilize the SS library to get Previously rejected wallpapers Distributed. So yes all walls in SS must be obscured to ensure the copyrights of others are maintained, and that the SS library is not used as a way to circumvent wallpaper moderation.

JC. while a lovely wall having the black parts covered does little for obscuring the wall as they can be easily covered over with even the simplest of editing software (MS paint).. the Main subject here would need to be covered in enough proportion to make it not worth the viewers time to try to remove the girl/bike section and rebuild the rest with image editors.

You don't *need* to provide a link, you just need to make sure the wall is sufficiently covered for the reasons already mentioned. Credits are nice, however they aren't required.

The ones that where approved would be because the moderator who put them up felt the wall was obscured enough. The wall need not be totally cover just some of the main focus of it covered so it would not be easily extracted from screenshot. No links to the wall are needed to upload, only if you have a link as a favour to the rest so we can go and get wall.

while yes I know the feeling of frusteration of making a good SS with these limitations, I understand the need for WC to keep these rules inplace for the betterment of the community at large...

 If you have any other questions you can feel free to PM me, if you wish to take this to a private medium..

HG

OK I am learning here. Thanks for your advice. I am still not sure why someone would modify a screen shot though when the actual image is easily obtainable. 

@ HG_Eliminator. I really appreciate the offer and i will take you up on it if I need. Thanks

While it may be easily obtainable at other sites {legally or not} WC has made it a policy to try and ensure we do not allow either intentional or unintentional redistribution of materials that are not offered up under specific general public licenseing/or that the uploader does not have express permission to redistribute.

There are people who would do this to then upload the wall somewhere and try to pass it off as their own work.

OK so if I was to use a wallpaper that I downloaded from the Harley Davidson Official site and gave the link to that wallpaper would I need to be obscured it in the shot?

Yes, it is about protecting the copyright of the wall when posted here, has nothing to do with a link being provided.

Yes, even tho it is offered at the official HD site we would still need it to be obscured to ensure that folks actually do go there to get the wall instead of just clicking, download here. That way WC does not get in to trouble for unauthorized redist of their copyrighted works.

All aritst here agree to allow WC to redist their works, its in the upload agreements. For people to upload others works here we would need the copyright holders express permission to the uploader to use as they wish and redistribute. This ensures that the artist of the images maintains control of thier assets here on WC, even tho some other sites refuse to abide by the governing laws and dont respect the artists enough to try to keep their works as safe as possible, WC maintains the artists rights to control their works.

in the case of screen shots we need shotters to ensure the aritsts works thier using are not being taken from thier SS. If only for the fact it keep them from getting page hits/comments etc.. it's not only the legality of it we look at, but the respect we have for each and every hardworking artist out there. We do our best to ensure artists works on and off of WC are safe when used here, be it a ss or a ported skin..

OK thanks everyone. You done a fine job teaching me.

Put simply...[it's halfway through a GrandPrix event...and I'm working there]....screenshots are NOT FOR THE DISPLAY OF WALLPAPERS.

They are screenshots of DESKTOPS....in action.

Typically the wall is ONLY a background which will have windows, docks, icons, etc in the foreground thus obscuring  some/part/most of the wall.

The only wall screenshot that can be accepted is a wall of your own specific making...it must be your work and your work only.

Obscuring [in part] is required to protect artist's copyright which naturally does not apply if the wall is your own and you are happy to distribute it in such a manner....whereby anyone can download the screenshot and 'extract' the image for their own ends.

NO image/wall....none, zero, zip that is NOT yours to distribute can be accepted as an exposed accessible wall in a screenshot.

Wow, I think everyone is getting a bit carried away here.  I totally agree with enforcing copyright, but there are probably tons of screenshots and preview images using other peoples wallpapers here on WC.  Some state who the artist is, others do not.  Some are even original to the OS and owned by Microsoft.

I see how this screenshot though can easily be edited to create a full-sized wallpaper image, but so what?  If it can be downloaded elsewhere legally on the Internet, why would someone waste their time editing a screenshot anyway?  I know if someone were to use one of my walls (albeit not very good ), I would feel honored to have someone show it in a screenshot.  It would be nice if they gave me credit, but no big deal.

In my opinion, and unless stated otherwise by the original author or if it is being used for profit, if an author puts his work on the Internet they are intending for it to be used and shown by people, so if it is in a screenshot, they should be happy that their work is getting exposure.

Added: Oh, and with Adobe CS5 in the works with its capabilities, I guess all screenshots will have to use a blank background then unless it is your own image too right? 

LightStar I think what you have wrote is what I believe but for the sake of stirring the pot even further I just resigned myself to shut up. I know for a fact that some have used others work without obscuring the background and it has been allowed. I know because I was one of those persons. I had submitted several in the past and never obscured the image. I gave credit to those I could but some wallpapers I knew nothing about. I removed those shots because I wanted to clean up my submissions. Now I am wishing I had not done that so people could see what I am talking about.

In the past I have created a few wallpapers of my own. I would be honored also if someone wanted to take those walls and use them in a shot providing they did not try to pass it off as their own work.

I am all for policies and will abide by them whether I agree or not. Besides I have no choice unless I just want to give up a hobby I enjoy.

I'm the opposite side of the coin. I'm a great believer in protecting all copyright. To have control over how your work is either presented or distributed is vital.

You may think it is over the top, but I would have removed the link in the OP - I can click that link, download the screenshot and extract the wallpaper in a couple of minutes. I really don't see here any protection for that artist's copyright.

Yes I do think that is over the top but that is just my opinion just like you have yours.

So where do we draw the line then. If you look at my shot you will notice that I also used a start button that I downloaded from deviantart. If I had obscured the main image and not obscure the button should it also have not been permitted. It is after all the Harley Logo but no one had said anything about that. Maybe no one noticed. 

I am not arguing Copyright. I believe in it. What I am arguing is what seems to be a double standard in some cases which really makes things confusing.

JuniorCrooks -

That's it in a nutshell.

The moderators will determine if any screenshot is within those rules. There is no 'double standard'.

It is possible that some screenshot may have gotten through that could be questionable but in the judgement of the moderator it was acceptable.  I would suggest following the 'official' advice from Jafo in comment # 19 of which I quoted a section from it.