[Tango-artists] Commercial closed Source Application and Tango
wszilveszter at gmail.com
Thu May 4 15:35:31 PDT 2006
Don't get me wrong, I make no assumption that you are "attacking" the
CC. My tone is not one of warmth or arrogance or hatefulness; these
responses merely deal with the issues at hand, take them as being
without emotion (as they are intended).
"So just so we're clear, do you believe that copying the artwork into
another icon *without transformation* does or doesn't make it a
derivative work? "
Didn't you answer your own question? If you make the claim "without
transformation," then ipso facto it cannot be a derivative (as you have
already made the statement "without transformation"). If you mean to
merge the icons, then yes, the overall image has changed (been
transformed) from either of the two originals and is completely new
(despite being made of old parts). Again refer back to the very
definition of transformation.
Keep in mind, we are talking about the image itself here. If you merge
two icons, then yes, I would say there is a transformation. If you
rename paths, that again, does not "transform" the image itself (the
original and the new one are still identical to the eye), then I would
say it cannot be a derivative. The focus is always on the image.
Look, in all respects, you simply need to change a pixel, or the colour
of a "path." Anything that results in a physical change to the
appearance of the original would constitute a derivative here (and that
means merging icons as well). The CC does not mention how much a
transformation is required. One could argue (perhaps successfully,
though I dont believe so) that a pixel or the most minor change is
insufficient in meeting the CC, but a defence can easily be raised
(rather successfully in my belief) that the CC does not state the level
of transformation required (nor cannot it not without becoming
I am not attacking you, but showing that the CC is in fact sound and
sufficiently non-ambiguous for the scope of our discussion. As I said,
all legal contracts are open for interpretation, and again, it is up to
you to offer sound arguments why you believe a particular use either
falls inside or outside of the intended copyright, and a judge to agree
with you. But retain the focus on the image and not the most trivial
date stamp, backend construction, and other details that do not directly
pertain to the image itself changing.
Matt Chaput wrote:
> William Szilveszter wrote:
>> Even changing one pixel is a transformation. Rotation is an image
>> transformation or adaptation. As it stands, any type of manipulation,
>> yes even a mere pixel discolouration, or movement counts as an
>> adaptation or transformation. Even image resizing falls under these
>> "guidelines." Basically we are talking about any type of
>> post-processing to the image.
> So just so we're clear, do you believe that copying the artwork into
> another icon *without transformation* does or doesn't make it a
> derivative work?
> I don't think it's necessary for you to take a tone as if I'm
> attacking the CC license, or as if my question is stupid or trivial. I
> personally believe the Tango Project and its users would benefit from
> a couple of disambiguating examples of how Tango believes the CC
> license applies to the tango bitmaps and vector graphics specifically.
>> If you edit the path or file name, that has nothing to do with the
>> image itself.
> I thought it would have been obvious I was talking about "paths" as in
> vector-based illustration.
More information about the Tango-artists