Here (http://www.deviantart.com/download.php?id=136616) is a collage of screenshot siltrince took from his windows explorer. All these wallpapers are on the cd-rom of a french magazine called "Joystick". I'm sure they did not ask permittion to put them on there cd-rom because one of my wall's is on it to.
Maybe one of your wallpapers is on there. So it's a french magazine "joystick" they have a website at [link] where you can find the email adresses from the magazine. Maybe we could send them a mail that is signed by all the artist that found a rip of them and ask for a financial fee.
So i don't know if there are other members that have been ripped. In order to take some other action plz send me a note or leave a message here.
holy shit. none of those are mine, but i've seen more than half of those posted by really good artists. i hope they plan on sueing this company since that is illegal.
I'm keeping a list of all people who have been ripped here. If anyone wants to contact me you can send me a note at deviantart or mail to siltrince@hotmail.com
oh maaan.. hmm.. either those ppl did know about this kinda copyright stuff (yeah, right .. ) or they just didn't care, which is even worse. I don't have any of my wallpapers there, so this doesn't touch me personally in any way, but i think that they prolly would have got permission to use at least 90% of those, if they just would have asked.. damnit, stupid ppl..
As I already wrote in the topic it wasnīt me who found all this out - it was siltrince, who comes from Belgium, which is supported with french magazines.
I simply suggest to come together in order to kick this french asses - I mean there are already quite a bunch of people who recognized their pieces, which by the way have been posted to share it with the community right?
If they think they have to sell those pieces, īcause thatīs what they simply do I expect form them to give us, the creators and rightholders a profitable cut. All we have to do now is simply come together and consider about our futher tactics.
How does this sound?
Therefore please contact siltrince at DA or send him an e-mail siltrince@hotmail.com.
By the way: nice to hear again from you colossus72...
ok, i know i'm prolly opening up a can of worms here, buti gotta say this... everyone's upset because their work has been ripped onto this french mag's cd without permission, and it seems the issue is monetary compensation. you want money for the art you made!! i don't blame you!!
sound familiar? how many mp3's do you all have on your pc?
off topic? i doubt it. i'm just showing the flipside in a way.
and if you read devarts forum posts, it seems the main concern is getting paid money they feel like they're losing. in all those posts, i only read one where someone said all they want is credit.
Yea i vote for kicking som french a$$, and don't let them do it again. Totally fucked up to do like theyve done here... I mean, if they steal my wallpaper submits i'm going to ***** AARgh!!!
What's strange is that they've chosen many good wallpapers, but (imho) also some really bad..
If you're gonna steal (or whatever), do it with style.. no, just kiddin'. he he..
I think the right thing for them to do now would be to publicly apologize for this and give credit to the creators of all those wallpapers... or pay the author (in some way..) if both parts agree.
However this goes, this is still illegal, and no way should anybody just let this pass on by.
In the end it's not the money, it's my "wallpaper being seen all over europe" as they (joystick) say, and no one knowing I did it...... it's like they...stole them from me.
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication. - by Brad Templeton
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle Đ instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not needed.
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation." False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them. Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to an original article posted to USENET.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.
4) "My posting was just fair use!" See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind: The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)
Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own words.
See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!" False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.
You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.
6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me." False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission. Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is one major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide.
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!" Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evide
wow. isn't there a limit to a post? kidding, colossus.
penaduny, eat shit. reread my post, dumbass. the part in the brackets. but i'm also not one of the ones who want monetary compensation for the use of their walls, either, like some are. did you even read the thread at devart, or are you really that stupid?
k ive been following this for a little while and honestly youre not gonna get anywhere by suing the magazine. they have a ton of money and can afford top-notch lawyers, and you'll end up losing money. i guarantee it, but feel free to sue anyways.
u should ask someone who gat a popular website to make a newz on it ...i dunno for example scott kurtz (pvp) ...find someone familiar with graphix (a french one ?)... but suing is gay use instead the media or make a website... its not big deal for me ... anyway gl with that
