Carlitus, check it out...

http://www.anc.meta.ne.jp/~yibing/english/clie_skin.htm

There's a skin for a PocketPC launcher called Yishow that uses your Noia graphics. No mention of any permission from you. Just thought you'd like to know.

jarget
3,146 views 15 replies
Reply #1 Top
A palm not PocketPC

Reply #2 Top
i can spot Linestudio, Hein Mevissen, Mikkel Madsen and Pixture Studio rips as well >
Reply #3 Top
Here's another link http://www.cliesource.com/sdownload/index.php?catid=24&sortby=lastmodifydate&sortorder=DESC&page=3

>
Reply #4 Top
You have got to check this out at the messageboard where Noia is located.

http://www.cliesource.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=59050#post59050
Reply #5 Top
jarget, I followed the link and read it.

It is so funny how these thieves will try anything to justify their despicable ways. Imagine, this person uses righteous indignation and tries to make it seem like it is your fault for even bringing the subject up. I'm tellin' ya, some peoples kids. >
Reply #6 Top
motion, I hear ya. It almost makes me laugh how these fools behave.
Reply #7 Top

Message as sent...

"Please excuse the 'tone', as this is a 'standard' letter aimed directly at Intentional, premeditated violators of copyright.

But please heed the content....

[Hopefully this link will work]

http://www.cliesource.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=59050#post59050

It appears that you are displaying numerous images on your site originally created by authors other than yourself/or the person uploading them.
Although images are freely available for download on the Internet, they are EXPRESSLY for personal use, which does not include the reproduction and redistribution of them via another site such as yours.
The modification, and/or re-distribution of an artist's images without his/her express permission is in violation of the Artist's Copyright, and is pursuable in law.

Whether these images link to the original artist's site or not, or whether the Original artist is credited or not, without prior permission to display such, you are in violation of inherent and/or expressed copyright.

I strongly suggest you remove any such images for which you do not have permission to display, and minimize the potential for litigation against you and subsequent claims for loss.

I await your favourable response.

Paul Martin
Jafo
[Admin...Wincustomize.com]
[Admin...Pixtudio.com]
[Admin...Pixelprintz.com]
[Senior Member...Deviantart.com]"
Reply #8 Top
Word.
Reply #10 Top
Good one motion!
Reply #11 Top
jafo: how can you litigate against someone for claims of loss when they aren't losing anything as the product is given away free? it really amounts to free speech, doesn't it? besides, the artist holds an implicit copyright anyways, not a full one...
Reply #12 Top
ummm... I think the point is that just because it is free doen't mean anyone can distibute it. So if the original design is free does that mean some one esle can distibute it without reguard to the original artist?

basically I think the legalize is more like if they designed it for free distobution, others can distubute but the origanal artist should be noted.

I wonder what Jafo has to say about this??
Reply #13 Top
And it is called NoiaNatural?? What is up with that? Took the name and used the icons... I read some of the thread over there... they are diffending themselves with legal stuff but if it happened to them they might not have liked it so much. It is not nice to give credit to a fellow artist. and then defend that you do not have to because it is "free"?
Reply #14 Top
It's really simple joe............If you don't have permission, you don't have permission.
Reply #15 Top
thejewfro...
The determination of 'loss' is not left in the realm of the thief, but with the person the 'property' was removed from.

The rights to distribute a person's work or property remain with that person, unless expressly provided for 'free public distribution' by that person.

There is no requirement for monetary transaction to determine 'loss'.
Personal control of the distribution of one's own property is implicit in 'ownership'.
When people such as these distribute what is YOUR property without your permission to do so, they have stolen your rights of distribution....dealing, and/or handling stolen goods.

As for 'free speech'....by all means, TALK about distributing another's property, just don't DO it.
That's called 'theft'.

'Giving away for free' is the sole right of the author, no-one else...