×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linspire Accused Of Misusing Creative Commons Art

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the ask-and-receive dept.

Linux Business 534

SuperDuG writes "Seems that intellectual property and copyright laws are something that Linspire still doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of. Their flash intro has with it some popular Linux images made by a rather talented artist. An email to Klowner was the first notice he ever got about the images being hijacked, not once has Linspire requested permission to use these images in their ad campaign. They seem pretty similar to me, you be the judge."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

534 comments

Linspire are Lassholes (2, Flamebait)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996601)

I think everyone can acknowledge right now that we'd be better off without them, right?

Re:Linspire are Lassholes (2, Interesting)

SavedLinuXgeeK (769306) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996684)

I do not know. Linspire is trying really hard to gain a niche in the desktop market, and while Microsoft undoubtedly has shot their momentum down to nothing, they haven't given up. Im not defending their misuse of artwork or anything else but as a linux distribution, especially one that charges for the distro, I am sure that Linspire has a strong desire to correctly protect IP laws. And while I know I would be upset if someone misused my work, it was just a flash intro on the website. Honestly, it could have been much worse.

"Small" misuse? Maybe not to the artist... (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996842)

And while I know I would be upset if someone misused my work, it was just a flash intro on the website. Honestly, it could have been much worse.

Well, depending on how much the artist depends on art for his income, I'm not sure that it could be much worse. I use a great deal of commercial art in my work, and I think most of the people I contract with for artwork sell to me because they need to pay the rent (or enjoy RAII-approved CD now and then...). There is no excuse for a sizable commercial entity like Lindspire to be misusing other peoples work in even a small way (and, really, a flash intro on your flagship web site is not a small misuse).

Re:Linspire are Lassholes (1)

steveb964 (727054) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996685)

...they are determined to distort and corrupt the true image of Linux as a whole. At first their games were fun (Lindows vs. Windows), but this doesn't seem right.

Hopefully the name change will keep the general public from associating Linux with this nonsense.

Re:Linspire are Lassholes (2, Insightful)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996696)



Yet another shining example of the "all information should be free, except for the stuff that I think I might make a buck off of" mindset. But how much do you want to bet that Linspire would start shrieking bloody murder if someone infringed on *their* hard work. Someone should start ripping off their designs (they *did* do some work on their own, right?) just to see what they'd do. Bastards...

Re:Linspire are Lassholes (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996767)

Did they do any work? I thought everything they have was just taken off SourceForge and crammed into a distribution.

Re:Linspire are Lassholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996863)

Get things "crammeed" is the kind of work linux need to be conquer the desktop.

WHO FUCKING CARES IS ON TEH SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996614)

yay! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996615)

first comment!

suckypoo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996617)

well gosh darn it!

Twenty-one Ways to Be a Good Liberal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996618)

1.) You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.
2.) You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3.) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-bidding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese and North Korean communists.
4.) You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5.) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.
6.) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
7.) You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.
8.) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
9.) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10.) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
11.) You have to believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
12.) You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.
13.) You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14.) You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Mary Washington, Betsy Ross, the American
Pioneer Women, Eleanor Roosevelt, "Rosey the Riveter," and Rosa Parks.
15.) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.
16.) You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice
person.
17.) You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18.) You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19.) You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20.) You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21.) You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing
conspiracy.

1 way to be a good Republican (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996654)

STOP BELIEVING THAT KING GEORGE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT AMERICANS, THEIR RIGHTS OR GOD.

George Bush is a FASCIST not a conservative. He is a fucking neo-con puppet who can't talk his way out of a paper bag

Re:1 way to be a good Republican (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996710)

in addition, anyone who votes for Bush in the next election is:

a fucking selfish ethnocentric nationalistic ASSHOLE
a damn imbecile
living in a dream world
a LOSER
out of touch with reality
will receive a flying fish in the face upon exiting the polling booth.

anyone who votes for bush (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996725)

"in addition, anyone who votes for Bush in the next election is"

voting for the best man in the election. Period.

anyone ever notice... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996766)

when you bash republicans, you get -1 offtopic

when you bash democrats/liberals, you get -1 troll or flamebait.

oh well. not like misuse of moderation is a new thing here...

Not just the one flash, either. (2, Interesting)

Mr. Darl McBride (704524) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996623)

While you're on about this, you might also ask why the painting of the four rasta musicians used in the Lindows Rock [linspire.com] video isn't credited.

I also see what I recognize as a stock Associated Press photo of Bill Gates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the other photos were borrowed without credit (or payment) as well.

Re:Not just the one flash, either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996845)

After watching that, I am now convinced Linspire and their marketing department are smoking crack on a regular basis.

Re:Not just the one flash, either. (2, Interesting)

Steve_Jobs_HNIC (513769) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996938)

Lindows is using a stolen image from Klowner, who's using a stolen style from Apple (read:Aqua Tux), who's using a stole system from Xerox, ...

Side note, is it just me or has this shading technique been over used. I'm starting to see this stuff on cereal boxes.

He has them.... (1)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996626)

by the balls!

If I were him I'd play my cards right and ask for a ridiculous amount of preferred stock in order for them to not get sued.

So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (1, Insightful)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996776)

It's so hard to keep track! Let me see...

copyright is GOOD when protecting the GPL

copyright is BAD when protecting music

copyright is GOOD when protecting Linux art

That about right?

Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (5, Insightful)

SWroclawski (95770) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996854)

There's no hypocracy here at all...

Copyright is generally a neutral thing. It's neither good nor bad.

Music is generally considered something people want to share and is good. The problem is how expensive and restrictive the music has been and worse, how the RIAA has chosen to go about enforcing the copyright. Instead of addressing people's concerns, they've decided to sue people and create technology which limits freedom.

But no one that I know is against artists getting compensated.

Here, we have someone who is giving his art away, but with the restiction that if you use it to make money- you have to negotiate something with him. A company has decided to use his work for just that purpose. So now people are upset.

Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (1)

YankeeInExile (577704) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996866)

I think we can agree that copyright is in general a Good Thing

The entire space of the music "sharing" discussion is: Does giving my friend Joe a copy of this track/disc/collection constitute fair use or not?

For my part, I think it frequently does not, but I am not sitting on a jury, so my opinion is of little to no value

I am reminded of the Simpson's where Bart goes to work for the mob, and Fat Tony is justifying their criminal enterprise, Suppose your family don't like bread, but instead they like cigarettes

Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (3, Funny)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996870)

Close.... nutters in the music thing say "Copyright is... uh.. FLEXIBLE because.. I.. uh.. um... I don't want to pay the price that they ask, but I don't want to stop listening to their music... er.. no.. wait.. uh.. THE RIAA IS CHARGING TOO MUCH MONEY SO I'M HELPING TO DESTROY AN EVIL EMPIRE BY IGNORING COPYRIGHT LAW AND RIPPING OFF COPIES OF THEIR SONGS!!!!"

Re:So now we're back to copyright GOOD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996895)

We need an impartial party to decide this case. Bring in the RIAA.

Re:He has them.... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996790)

...and his damages are?

Winning lawsuit != instant millionaire.

The most he would get is removal of the images, and if he was lucky, repayment of his attorney's fees.

Re:He has them.... (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996897)

The most he would get is removal of the images, and if he was lucky, repayment of his attorney's fees.

What makes you say that? The have already used it. They will end up paying fair value for it, plus any lawyer fees.

I get the impression from your comments that you think this is a minor infraction. I take it you are not a commercial artist?

Re:He has them.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996797)


If I were him I'd play my cards right and ask for a ridiculous amount of preferred stock in order for them to not get sued.


Cool.

If a penguin drawer offers images for download with no license or copyright info and then slaps a non-commercial license on after a commercial entity has used it, then it is rah-rah for the little guy.

If a large cprporation offers up IP for public consumption and only mentions that it is propriatary after it has been adopted it is underhanded and evil.

Don't get me wrong, the Lin(suffix of the day) folks were stupid to use images that were publicaly provided w/o any license. However, it is dishonest to portray this as a case of Linspire ignoring the IP creator's license, since the license wan't applied until after the images were used.

And so it begins (2, Informative)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996856)

Copyright is implict - he doesn't have to put a license up to be covered. His work == his copyright. Personal use of it on someone's desktop can fall under fair-use, but incorporating it into your product's main sales speel does not. Publishing a license for it would have helped clarify the issue of course.

Re:He has them.... (1)

slipstick (579587) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996936)

Without a specific license "granting" them some use rights than standard copyright applies which means they can't just copy it. Any 5th grader on Slashdot knows this, surely Linspire has lawyers that can tell them this.

Anybody would be stupid to download some company's copywritten code or documentation and use it without some license attached. In fact I'd like to know who you think does this? Actually you say "IP" by which I presume you mean "Intellectual Property", since no such animal actually exists you'll have to be more specific as to what your talking about. I assumed here "copywritten material" since that is what the original article was talking about.

We need some thing much simple (0)

anandpur (303114) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996628)

ALL RIGHTS RESERVER -> Some Rights Reserver -> ????

Read the CC license(s) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996721)

They let you reserve some rights while allowing other people some use. For example, these wallpapers (or the one I looked at), allowed non-commercial usage if credit was given. This is a commercial usage with no credit given. Lin* is violating the terms of usage.

Linspire (5, Funny)

cwis42 (563232) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996629)

Well, now we know the seven last letters of Linspire are just there by accident and do not denote a particular skill of them.

Marketing... (2, Interesting)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996631)

It seems that Graphical Artists in any Marketing division seem to run into this problem all the time.
Aren't the images on kde-look public domain? Or is there a disclaimer that forbids this?

Re:Marketing... (3, Informative)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996671)

Whoops, yes it is...
As of April 24th, the images are licensed under the Creative Commons License (Attribution/NonCommercial) which explicitly states that the work may not be used for commercial purposes, unless permission is provided by the author
Bad Linspire, BAD!!

Re:Marketing GENIUS... (-1, Troll)

shakamojo (518620) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996679)

I think that their marketing strategy is to get in as much legal hot water as possible... next they'll be sued by SCO! After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity!

Re:Marketing... (4, Insightful)

gordon_schumway (154192) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996715)

Aren't the images on kde-look public domain?

Why would you think that? Images in a public place, e.g. the internet, or for a GPL project are not public domain by default. They're under whatever terms their creator wants them to be.

Re:Marketing... (3, Informative)

odie_q (130040) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996718)

You do not need a disclaimer. If no explicit permission is granted to use the images, people have no such permission. As an extra heads-up, the kde-look pages are all marked with "All rights reserved," which is pretty much the opposite of an explicit permission to use the images as you see fit.

Lintellectual Property (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996637)

When you use their "Licrosoft Lord" program, Lippy (an animated pair of lips) says "You appear to be plagiarizing a document. Would you like some help?".

Lawsuits from both The Rolling Stones and Microsoft are pending.

Re:Lintellectual Property (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996737)

Awwwwwww, give 'em a break. They're just Linnovating.

KFG

Re:Lintellectual Property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996919)

Leading out that comment loud got my tongue all lolled ovel. Thanks.

Holy clap.

Another misleading title (2, Interesting)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996642)

From the referenced site...
As of April 24th, the images are licensed under the Creative Commons License (Attribution/NonCommercial) which explicitly states that the work may not be used for commercial purposes, unless permission is provided by the author. Prior to the addition of the CC license on Klowner's wallpaper site, there was no specific copyright, although standard international copyrights still hold.
So, the CC license wasn't applied when the flash demo was created, in fact it was a response to the art appearing on the commercial site. It's clear the the material was previously being offered "free" to anyone who wanted to download it, without any mention of a copyright. but does that imply a right to use the materical by a business. If you offer items for download, but do not state your intentions, does this allow commerical vendors to make a profit out of your work. I think that now that he has applied the CC license, future uses in presentations would be protected, but I am not sure of the offending one.

Re:Another misleading title (5, Informative)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996720)

No, since there was not CC license when the Flash demo was made, and there was no mention of copyright, then the default copyright laws apply. That is no derived works are permitted, period.

The CC license now allows non-commercial derived works.

Re:Another misleading title (2, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996898)

That's true and given that Lindows' primary activities are modifying other people's work and passing it off as their own and engaging in legal conflicts mostly of their own making, you'd think they'd know better.

Nonetheless, the story would be clearer and Lindows' actions would seem less distasteful if it explained that they took the images off a site with no explicit copyright statement and that the Creative Commons was only invoked afterwards.

Re:Another misleading title (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996733)

An absent statement of public license policy equals "All Rights Reserved" under the law.

Copyright by default (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996742)

In the US, *everything* is copyrighted by default. This means that unless there is explicit permission given (in the form of a license, or a grant of rights), copyright must be assumed. In other words, the fact that it was on a web page means nothing, the fact that there was a 'download' link means nothing, the fact that there was no mention of copyright means nothing - in the absence of a license or grant of rights, copyright law holds that you cannot use the work without written permission of the author.

Re:Another misleading title (3, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996752)

If you offer items for download, but do not state your intentions, does this allow commerical vendors to make a profit out of your work. I think that now that he has applied the CC license, future uses in presentations would be protected, but I am not sure of the offending one.

Actually, the Creative Commons licenses work the other way - they allow the artist to forfeit some of his rights. Unless explicitly stated, every content published on the Web is the exclusive property of the author. As such, Linspire would have to approach the author and ask for permission to use his work. The CC license limits the ownership of the author, and in some, clearly stated cases (in this case the use for non-commercial purposes) other may use the author's work without prior permission.

Re:Another misleading title (1)

gordon_schumway (154192) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996758)

If you offer items for download, but do not state your intentions, does this allow commerical vendors to make a profit out of your work.

Not unless the vendors don't care if they have their pants sued off, like Linspire.

Re:Another misleading title (0, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996829)

so a good business model is...
  1. Create images for an OS product
  2. Post said images on the net for download
  3. Encorage other to copy you work onto their sites for download
  4. "forget" to mention anything about a copyright.
  5. Find an offending business who uses your work for a presentation on the OS product benifits.
  6. Implement license
  7. sue (profit !!!)

Re:Another misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996788)

If no copyright licens is stated, all rights remain with the author/creator.
Thats all there is to it.

Re:Another misleading title (0, Redundant)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996868)

So everyone who has ever downloaded one of his images before April 24, will need to revisit the site to download a copy with the new license. Otherwise he could sue the pant off those (non-commerical) criminals who stole the images offered for download without license.

Re:Another misleading title (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996861)

If you offer items for download, but do not state your intentions, does this allow commerical vendors to make a profit out of your work.

If I offer the loan of my car does that mean people are free to steal it?

The default status is always that you need permission to use it, subject to fair use exceptions (which you may well still find yourself defending in court).

Copyright restrictions do not need to be explicitly enumerated. They are inherent. To use them as if you had rights to them is what requires explicit enumeration from the author.

KFG

argh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996645)

i don't have flash you insensitive clod

Klown is the real problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996648)

Klown is the real problem because he has copyrighted the Linux pengiun for his own personal use.

Honestly, I don't get it. (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996649)

I understand that artists have got to eat too, but really...

I mean, I hate to sound heartless, but the artist drew pictures advocating a completely free and open source OS. It would just therefore stand to reason that his artwork would be free as well.

It's like the new Firefox logo. I don't get that either. Is it really proper to allow artists to make money off of GPLed code? It may very well be legal, but I don't think it's right.

Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996778)

They just need to give credit where due. I don't believe it's really about money.

Get it (2, Informative)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996792)

I mean, the artist was standing on a street corner just singing this song for the price of a coin in the hat. It was something about "the GPL blues" so I thought surely he wouldn't care if we had p-diddy provide his own diddi-ized version on our next mega-pop talentless rap release...

Copyright means all rights reserved. Publishers don't even publish "public comments" from usenet in their for-profit publications because they don't want the hassle of securing permission from all the copyright holders. The fact I release a limited portion of my rights to this work doesn't mean I release all of them - that's how copyright works. That's how GPL works.

That's why it's called the GNU General Public License, and not the public domain.

Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (2, Insightful)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996804)

> Is it really proper to allow artists to make money off of GPLed code?

If we went by that ideas, you'd be implying that every book to do with GPL/OSS things should be free and that the authors should make no profit...

Re:Honestly, I don't get it. (3, Informative)

Christianfreak (100697) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996812)

The GPL doesn't forbid people from making money off of their software... let me repeat that ... The GPL does not forbid people from making money off of their software.

The GPL basically says 2 things: First people are free to modify or redistribute however they wish (they can even charge money). Secondly the GPL program must come with (or at least have freely availiable) the source code to the program.

The Creative Commons liscense is trying to do the same thing with artwork that the GPL has done for software. The difference is there really isn't a 'source code' for art other than the artist's head. So the stipulation is keep it out of commerical products unless you have a specific licsense to do so. Which really is the same effect the GPL has on software.

That's not what the GPL means (4, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996844)

I mean, I hate to sound heartless, but the artist drew pictures advocating a completely free and open source OS. It would just therefore stand to reason that his artwork would be free as well.

I don't think that's reasonable at all. If I'm a journalist, and I cover a free concert, does that mean I can't claim that time with my employer? Are my stories and photos public domain? In any other context, that doesn't make sense.

It's like the new Firefox logo. I don't get that either. Is it really proper to allow artists to make money off of GPLed code? It may very well be legal, but I don't think it's right.

Why not, anyone else is allowed to. You may have noticed Red Hat charges for GPL'd linux too. GPL doesn't necessarily mean free as in beer.

Re:That's not what the GPL means (4, Insightful)

m1a1 (622864) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996934)

I think you guys are all missing this guys point. His point is that we should be putting gpl (or whatever the gpl for art is called) art with gpl software. Not CCL art. Why? Because it avoids this confusing shit. Seriously, what is the difference between the CCL "give credit" clause and the X11 "advertising clause" people threw such a fit about? Not a fucking whole fucking lot as far as I'm concerned.

It's just a little ridiculous to be mixing the licenses together like that. It creates confusion. If these artists want to play with the open source kids then they need to embrace it too.

Not open source artwork then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996653)

Perhaps they thought that it was open source.
GPL Artistic License!

poo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996657)

poo

polite (2, Funny)

thebus (158196) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996658)

But the host of the demo sounds so polite. That's got to count for something. right?

Strange SCO hasn't sued them.. (0, Offtopic)

BuddieFox (771947) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996688)

I bet SCO must be kicking themselves for not going after Linspire instead of.. well, just about everyone else.
SCO would have had a field day considering Linspires shameless rip-offs (first "Lindows", then Apple's software _and_ web-site, and now this).
Had they gone after Linspire, there might actually have been people believing their ludicrous claims considering Linspires track-record..
Just compare: this [linspire.com] with this [apple.com]

Rounded taps, so what? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996774)

Just compare: this [linspire.com] with this [apple.com]

Pfft. So they both have lit, rounded tabs. Who owns the patent on that idea?

Re:Rounded taps, so what? (1)

BuddieFox (771947) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996810)

Not saying that its "forbidden", I just find it Strange that they change the design of their site to mirror that of Apples at the sametime as they shamelessly copy iPhoto and iTunes gui:s _after_ they have gotten into the media by being the "lookalike and namealike" company of Windows.

Seems to me that they are looking for free publicity anyway possible, even if it means publicity as "the copycats".

"Please note" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996691)

"Limited Bandwidth"

(From the email, about the wallpaper site!) Good job Slashdot. Poor some salt in this guy's wounds.

How is this a troll!? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996748)

From the "linux images [migamer.com] " link:
As indicated, the images in the left column are screenshots from the product promotion flash animation on Linspire's website. The demo may be found here. The images on the right are original background images made by Mark "Klowner" Riedesel, his site is available here (please note, limited bandwidth).

until proven guilty--GUILTY! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996708)

Lindows just proved the M$ lawsuit was justified. They shot theirselves in the foot. As a matter of fact, Lindows is very bad about giving credit to the original authors of software too. The even rename some packaged apps to make them seem like it is their own...

I'm in shock (1)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996713)

I mean, Lindows oops.. I mean Linspire is a good, law abiding company that respects intellectual property rights. Oh, wait..

I wonder... (3, Insightful)

thewiz (24994) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996727)

If Linspire believes they have rights to Mark's images because they sponsor www.kde-look.org where his images are available as backgrounds?

I'm not saying they are right for taking, altering, and using the images without his permission. I, too, think they have violated the Creative Commons license. But I have seen cases where companies have appropriated images, information, and physical property from groups or organizations that they sponsor.

The companies believe they have paid for it with their sponsorship (wrongly, IMHO)

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996791)

Except if you read the linked site, Mark only applied the CC license after he became aware of Linspire using the images. Prior to that the images said they were 'free for all to use' with no license restrictions.

Ironic... (1)

Ricerocket63 (762497) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996732)

That the site kde-look.org is sponsored by Lindows.com... I don't see any copyright, license info on kde-look .org, would posting your stuff on that site, imply your making it public domain?

Re:Ironic... (2, Informative)

selan (234261) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996885)

Every project, artwork, etc. that is released at kde-look.org can specify a license. Look for it under the Description section. The default is GPL.

Copyright infringement is not theft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996735)

Okay, I was all ready to be indignant about this, I generally support the concept of copyright. But the artist lost all credibility when he started whining about theft. There's a big bold heading labelling the Linspire material as being STOLEN. What a fucking idiot. I can't support this artist as long as he uses the dishonest weasel-words of the RIAA and MPAA.

Copyright infringement is not theft. They are completely different crimes, with different punishments and different consequences.

Disclaimer: For the second time in this post, I am explicitly not condoning copyright infringement. Any replies assuming otherwise should be marked as 'Troll'.

It is something like theft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996777)

It is something like theft if Linspire appropriates this work and represents it as their own.

However, it is nothing like theft if someone copies a Britney Spears MP3 and presents it for download as a Britney Spears MP3. No mispresentation or misappropriation of work as ones own is done.

Re:It is something like theft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996816)

It is something like theft if Linspire appropriates this work and represents it as their own.

No, it's still just copyright infringement. They would have had to break into the original artist's computer and delete his copies of the artwork for it to be "something like" theft [reference.com] .

Re:Copyright infringement is not theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996786)

Since when is it flamebait to ask people to not use hyperbole and dishonesty to try and exaggerate their case?

Mod this through the roof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996802)

Anyone who says that copyright infringment of any kind is "Theft" is lying through their teeth.

Bait and switch (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996744)

This title is misleading because the artwork had no CC license when originally posted. If your offer up your creative material with no copyright protection and state that it is free for all to use, why shouldn't Linspire (or for that matter Microsoft or SCO) feel free to use it?

Changing the license afterwards like the author did in this case is also your right, but it is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

FWIW, I've seen the same artwork in other Live CD's (Slax comes to mind) so Linspire aren't the only people who grabbed it.

You're wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996794)

On the author's website [dugnet.com] (not the KDE look hosting of them), they are licensed using CC. For example, see Sky Bubble Tux [dugnet.com] , which is licensed using CC for Attribution Non-Commercial. Now, perhaps Lin* got this from somewhere else, but they should've search more thorougly for the author and any copyright terms before they just started using them in a commercial app. LiveCD's that are non-commercial can use it, if they give the author credit.

Re:Bait and switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996827)

Read the original post. He added the CC license in the last few days.

Copyright on Prior Art (0, Insightful)

javelinco (652113) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996762)

Okay, Linspire = assholes. However, they are NOT breaking copyright. Think Calvin & Hobbes. These images DID NOT previously exist as exact duplicates. Image copyright protects EXACT duplication, and this did not happen. Nothing illegal here, just another company stealing ideas from someone else.

Re:Copyright on Prior Art (1)

smcavoy (114157) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996849)

I'm not familiar with Calvin & Hobbes, but the images are nearly identical. it would seem they took the originals and added to them.
If I used an (non-trademarked) image from a large corportation and added my own text, that wouldn't constitute a copyright infringment?

Re:Copyright on Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996920)

> Image copyright protects EXACT duplication, and this did not happen. Nothing illegal here,

Wait, are you saying that I can copy any image if I change one (or a few) dots?

Disappointing, really (3, Interesting)

consolidatedbord (689996) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996765)

It's a shame that this company who is supposed to be bringing the spotlight to desktop linux, is bringing it in such a way. First, we had the Microsoft mockeries on the website, and now blatant stealing of someone else's work. The sad thing, is that there are those out there who will start to think that open source software is about stealing other's source, and that that would be the only reason to keep it open. Sad, but probably true. It's companys like these that we don't need bringing a bad name to linux. I think it is time for the Lindash/Lindows/Linspire, whatever people to mature up a little bit.

Mousey (4, Funny)

krumms (613921) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996771)

I'd post a URL to the demo but the Mac I'm on has inadequate mousing abilities.

Come, let us all softly tremor with sorrow, for the one buttoned mouse has gotten the better of this poor soul.

The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend... (5, Insightful)

YankeeInExile (577704) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996795)

I really respect that Lindows^WLinspire is doing what it can to give OSS an outlet to the non-/. public

That being said -- there is something about that organization that rubs me the Wrong Way

Another fact about this story that leaves me wondering -- the Klown website very sneakily says (paraphrased) as of 24 April is licensed under ... Well, inquiring minds want to know: PREVIOUS to 24 April, under which (if any) license was it released under?

Of course, I am sure I don't need to point out that under US Copyright law (assuming for the moment that the artist is producing his work in that country -- and Linspire is definitely based in the US ofA ), the mere production of the work attaches copyright to the creator of the work, and s/he is under no obligation whatsoever to delineate the ways in which it can be used by others.

This is important people: Whatever you write is copyright by definition. In absence of verbiage to the contrary (i.e. GPL, CC, BSD), nobody can usurp your product. Another question: Can someone who Is A Lawyer quote some caselaw on active-protection as applied to copyright? (I know how it applies to trademarks, but copyright != patent != trademark )

Hmmm. Not only that... (3, Interesting)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996830)

But they're still using "LindowsOS" in much of the presentation. Good grief.

I don't see the similarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996909)

I mean, if you really squint your eyes and use your imagination, maybe they sorta, kinda, resemble each other. But not really. I think this is just one of those "Michael Jackson stole three notes from me and made a hit song" complaints.

It's really too bad. (2, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#8996853)

It's really too bad that this company seems to be doing everything the wrong way. It could be a great way to bring OSS-related computing power to the masses, especially with the Wal-Mart machines.

However, they goad Microsoft with the Lindows name (Hint: if Baba Wawa pronounces the names of both softwares in an identical fashion, you blew it) and then changed to a name that is Lame in everything but the name itself. And now this...

Go Linspire GO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#8996941)

As I have downloaded mp3:s illeagally from net, I can only sympathize with Linspire folks. Copyright Law truly sucks. It's very artificial and unatural.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...