[Tango-artists] Commercial closed Source Application and Tango Icons

[William Szilveszter]

Matt,

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 
incessantly complex).

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.

Regards,

Will

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.
>
> Matt
>