Smoothblue Style :)

we talked about "inspiration", not "cloning"... what would be the reason on making a skin exactly like this one here and release it if the guys at DirectPixel told they would never release their skins publically ther than official versions like this one...

[smacklan]

ummm...I must be missing something in this conversation, but what you are saying is you've basically ripped their skin...it doesn't matter if you wrote it or not...images are copyrighted and you sound extemely close to being in copyright enfringement waters.

[Corriewf]

Originally Posted by Injektilo

I've just made a style 100% identical to vb.org smooth blue style. ALL images are made from me! (Did not copy them from vb.org) and i have the .psd for 'em.

My question is it illegal or ... not cool to use it? And if so, will it be ok to use it with different colors etc?

Please don't go against me now, i just had a lot of time in my hands and did this style since i couldnt think one of my own :P

Peace!

Its only illegal if you block the copyright and have not bought a branded free option or if you do not give me a copy of this style for free..... Ok I lied about the lasat part. :ninja:

Originally Posted by smacklan

ummm...I must be missing something in this conversation, but what you are saying is you've basically ripped their skin...it doesn't matter if you wrote it or not...images are copyrighted and you sound extemely close to being in copyright enfringement waters.

How do you copyright the colors there smacklan? She/He said they made thier images.....

Originally Posted by Injektilo

well, when you see them, you wont be able to know the difference, except the language on some buttons

Why do you not change it up just a bit.

[Chris M]

Directpixel is not the person to contact about this - You would need to contact a Site Administrator here, as vBulletin.org own the copyright to this style...

Chris

[DirectPixel]

Originally Posted by Chris M

Directpixel is not the person to contact about this - You would need to contact a Site Administrator here, as vBulletin.org own the copyright to this style...

Chris

Chris is correct. vBulletin.org owns the rights to this skin.

And here's a refresher on US and International copyright law, since there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding.

All works of original art that is created is automatically copyrighted the owner (in the US. This work was created in the US, so is subject to this clause) (or the employer, if the creator was working within the scope of his employment at the time). As the original copyright holder, he/she is entitled to control of the original work, in addition preventing any derivatives (including your style).

As a result, if you would like to use your style, even though you have created it yourself from scratch (it is still legally considered a derivative work), you will need to seek permission from the copyright holders. In this case, the vBulletin.org Site Administrators.

Simply leaving the copyright intact is not enough. It is no substitute for consent, and in a court of law, it holds absolutely no weight.

Hope this clears it up.

[Chris M]

Originally Posted by DirectPixel

Chris is correct. vBulletin.org owns the rights to this skin.

And here's a refresher on US and International copyright law, since there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding.

All works of original art that is created is automatically copyrighted the owner (in the US. This work was created in the US, so is subject to this clause) (or the employer, if the creator was working within the scope of his employment at the time). As the original copyright holder, he/she is entitled to control of the original work, in addition preventing any derivatives (including your style).

As a result, if you would like to use your style, even though you have created it yourself from scratch (it is still legally considered a derivative work), you will need to seek permission from the copyright holders. In this case, the vBulletin.org Site Administrators.

Simply leaving the copyright intact is not enough. It is no substitute for consent, and in a court of law, it holds absolutely no weight.

Hope this clears it up.

Wow - Something I said is actually true - Has my home frozen over? o.O

Chris

[DirectPixel]

Originally Posted by Chris M

Wow - Something I said is actually true - Has my home frozen over? o.O

Chris

From what I understand of Dante, it has always been frozen.

[Chris M]

Well you surface to the mortal plain for 20 years and things get sloppy down there

Chris

[Decado]

Just my two cents - Artwork is protected, but that doesn't mean someone can't recreate sometihng with their own twist on it. I point outto you the case of Jack Vettriano (i believe that is the correct spelling) Who painted and sold paintings which were copies of the paintings in "learn to paint" manuals etc. Perfectly legal, as it was all his own work, even if it was similar, or indeed the same, as this other work. Unfortunately doing your own take on something is NOT a derivative of it. If everything was done on his own, then just because it bears resemblance to another style doesn't give the owner of that other style copyright over it.

If it could be shown that the images were simply recreations of the original images then yes it would be in breach of copyright. If they were created from scratch then no, it wouldn't.

[DirectPixel]

Originally Posted by Decado

Just my two cents - Artwork is protected, but that doesn't mean someone can't recreate sometihng with their own twist on it. I point outto you the case of Jack Vettriano (i believe that is the correct spelling) Who painted and sold paintings which were copies of the paintings in "learn to paint" manuals etc. Perfectly legal, as it was all his own work, even if it was similar, or indeed the same, as this other work. Unfortunately doing your own take on something is NOT a derivative of it. If everything was done on his own, then just because it bears resemblance to another style doesn't give the owner of that other style copyright over it.

If it could be shown that the images were simply recreations of the original images then yes it would be in breach of copyright. If they were created from scratch then no, it wouldn't.

Well, if you are going to cite the case of Jack Vettriano, then I might as well explain UK's copyright laws (The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988), which clearly states that inexact reproductions of another's work may or may not be infringement, depending on its degree.

Jack Vettriano's case was unique in that it involved paintings. The specifics of the case involved him allegedly copying figures from "Illustrators Figure Reference Manual", a book. In particular, there were figures in Vettriano's painting "The Singing Butler" which were almost identical to figures depicted in a photograph contained in "Illustrators Figure Reference Manual".

The outcome of the case was decided in favor of Jack Vettriano not because his copy of the painting was his own creation. It was decided in favor of Jack Vettriano because by placing the figures from the "Illustrators Figure Reference Manual" in a beach, and arranging them in relation to each other and changing elements of the models such as their clothing or their poses, "it was arguable that Vettriano has created a narrative and an atmosphere that did not exist before in the photographs and therefore he has not breached the copyright protection afforded to the manual."

If it could be shown that the images were simply recreations of the original images then yes it would be in breach of copyright. If they were created from scratch then no, it wouldn't.

You'd think that is true. However, copyright law does not care about how the product was created. If you opened up Adobe Illustrator and recreated the Coca-Cola logo from scratch, it will still not be yours. Express permission must be obtained from the copyright (or in the case of Coca-Cola, trademark) holder before such creations can be displayed publicly.

Or a better example. Let's say you borrowed a nice book from the library. You read it, and loved it. This doesn't mean that you can open up Word and type up the entire book (starting from a blank page) and sell it, or even claim it as yours. You are not afforded any rights just because you copied (or created from scratch) something that looks exactly like something already copyrighted.

(Seriously. You're trying to explain copyright law to a guy that lives and breathes law textbooks practically 24/7. )