Re: Using pre-made graphics

Tarik Dozier wrote:


>That sounds like an emotional issue to me.

Nothing emotional, it is just a Christian metaphor meaning (in the usual
interpretation) "take a look at your self before blaming another".

>The fact of the matter is that improper information was
>corrected, potentially illegal activities were noted, and the ethics of
>such things were questioned. If someone is hurt by being rightfully told
>that they are wrong, then they should simply try harder to not be wrong.
But for me it sounds more like "kill all the extremists".


>Ah. Well, I don't derive scripts from other sites unless it is the most
>necessary thing to serve my purpose and I have permission from the author.
>Moreover, I don't generally look at source to see how something was done,
>as it is easy enough to discern such a thing after having studied the
>specification.
Your words : "unless", "generally" are enough for me.


>You are incorrect in asserting that such navigational
>technologies are specific to the Web.
I don't think so. If the technology is used in 90% in the web and in 10% in
multimedia products or other things then I can say it's quite specific to
the Web.



>> If something is not an object (i.e.. an image) it doesn't mean it is a
>> standard!
>
>Right. No one implicitly claimed the contrary.
Then let me cite you:
"Don't rant to me about theft of layout; such elements are old standards."

>If that is the point upon which you base your
>arguments, then they are well-meaning but misguided.

My point was quite clear and I don't think it is questionable in anyway.
Read my previous messages again if you are not convinced.

>> It should be. Because the copyright law should preserve the creative
work,
>> the novelty and nothing else. The image by itself (as an object) is not
the
>> subject of the copyright, but rather the ideas behind it are.
>
>That is a falsehood. Don't just take my word for it (about this or
>anything else), ask a lawyer. The image is copyrighted; the process and
>concept behind the creation of the image can be duplicated legally. The
>image itself cannot.
IMO, this is just a side effect of the law, but not the meaning. If there is
_nothing_ new in your image this means it looks identically with another,
with no difference, so it falls in the copyright domain of the latter. The
law cannot be expressed in a way that protect only the novelty so it was
expressed in a way that protect the novelty too.
I do not know enough about American laws, and I am not talking in the
position of a lawyer. I am just interpreting the reasons of this law. Maybe
I am wrong because the splitting of this law (in America) in copyright,
patent and so on. More well founded opinions in Mike Langley's message on
this subject.

Regards,
Mihai

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA