OK quite honestly I think since Danwin is open source is free for all then Apple doesn't give a f**k about people making skins about the OS X interface. Actually if I was Apple I would think it would be good for buisness. IT IS NOT A RIP> In fact, Adam had to move all his works to DA becuase all of our Apple themes do not allow the Apple logo.

Speaking of a rip doomgaze, if you want to complain about one, check out Adma's LCARS theme. Wonder what Star Trek and/or Paramount thinks about it?

Get a life already.... Kona has spoken!

So OS's get knocked off all the time, is it fair? certainly not, and you're welcome to feel sorry for them all you want. But unless you're on the Apple legal team, a crusade is a waste of time...

So OS's get knocked off all the time, is it fair? certainly not, and you're welcome to feel sorry for them all you want. But unless you're on the Apple legal team, a crusade is a waste of time...

Well said brother. Nuff already doomgaze! You jealous of my Mac or somethin?

Scenario A)

Party A spends a few hours cutting and pasting from screenshots of the newest OS, or the upcoming Windows version. Party B spends weeks creating a theme from scratch, designing it from the ground up. Parties A & B end up with professional, slick work, and upload it. Now, who generally fares better, the guy who originates, or the guy that duplicates? And what if the Party B *isn't* good enough to make professional, slick graphics? His work sits there and pales in comparison to the stolen commercial art.

Scenario

party A spends a few hours cutting and pasting pics of hot babes he found on a pr0n site, and makes a collage from them. Party B buys a camera, learns to use it, hires models, and takes his own photos and makes a collage. Party A uploads to the average site in our 'community' and is eventually moderated for being a thief. Party B uploads, is accepted, and has the benefit of being judged among people who make their own art.

Odd contrast between the scenarios, huh?

I know the main opinions here. I have heard the "fan-art", "Fair-Use", "Yeah, but when the make those legal statements they don't *mean* it" and all the rest of the *wink wink* nonsense. I am beyond believing that anyone will change. I mean, how many people bought windows-skinning software so they could have the Aqua interface, would you say? How many people would invest in icon-swapping apps if they didn't have a big database of modded commercial icons to stock up on? Adhering to any of a number of EULAs and 'terms of use' would, no doubt, make for less bait.

What I do wish is that we would have enough respect for our own artists not to bury them in stolen graphics. "Intellectual Property" and "Fan Art" discussions are moot if you care about the amateur artists who create original work. In the end, is this site here for the artists, even those who aren't making commercial grade graphics, or the guy that is too lazy to go download a Matrix wallpaper from the appropriate site?

Dead horse. I have that creepy, gross feeling that I had a few months ago. Probably shouldn't have posted this.

kona: as has been said a ton of times, the Aqua desktop isn't related to the Darwin stuff: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/index.html

ah I did not mean it that way. sorry but I stick by my star trek statement.

Hiya Baker

What do we do when there's such a love for Mac skins? I would like to adhere to the strict "you drew it or it doesn't get in" policy, and in fact we all do try, but with the volume and popularity of these skins it's impossible to determine who drew it themselves and who took it from a screenshot (sometimes).

Since OS ports are here, and we do play them down as much as we can, is it fair to exclude the thousands of people who dig this from our "community"? Isn't that an elitist and prudish stance to take? What's wrong with just ignoring them?

When threads like this aren't happening, I don't think about the multitude of OS skins. When threads like this show up, OS skins become a focal point and get blamed for everything from hiding the good artist's work to a karmic debt of hypocrisy. Really now... it's just another group of people with different tastes and it's not fan-art or Briteny wallpapers, it's OS ports we're talking about and they've been a big part of skinning since the beginning.

Except for the fact that it is a dead horse, I agree totally with your sentiment. I'm just not willing to say my lack of interest in OS ports makes me more pure than someone who likes them or makes them. It's a personal preference, not a virtue. I have a lot of respect for several artists who make ports.

If I owned my own site, hosting other people's skins, ports, walls, etc....and held an absolute totalitarian attitude to the acceptance or non-acceptance of what was hosted....it would not just be Britney's walls that would get the cull....but anything and everything remotely considered to be 'borrowed' without consent.

Wincustomize.com is not 'my' site...it is 'our' site....belonging to its inherent community, which, I might add is not merely the vocal few on this board...who number perhaps in the hundreds, but all of the 680,000 plus people who have taken the effort to become members to interact with the site at whatever level that may be.

Even the 'pointy end of the stick' is a populous one and is not an autonomous entity.

Call it decision by committee or decision by majority, but if truth be known 'OS Ports' are popular, as are any recognizable GUI interfaces.

On a personal level, not 'official policy', I enjoy the concept of porting one entity into another dissimilar proggy....like the challenge of creating a WinAMP skin using 'elements' from another's wallpaper....something I've done on a number of occasions...[though my 'best' cannot be released as I still get no response from the wall artist].

Skinning is all about altering a GUI....and that makes alternate OS GUIs extremely popular targets with both makers and users.....and that's something we 'need' to accommodate - as a community.

If, and WHEN Apple, for example, requests any/all these be removed then that WILL be that....the 'party' will be over.

In the meantime we wait in tedium for the next OS or OS Ver for the next spate of 'anti-port frustration' that will resurface as it has every other time in skinning's history...

#7 by Doomgaze - 8/7/2003 7:52:54 PM So according to your logic, I can make skins to the likeness of Treetog's and its ok?

I'm still struggling to find the part in my post that says 'I think Mac rips are ok, and I accept them'.
Nope, 2 reads and still I can't find it.
Maybe you can point it out to me?

As well recognised as Treetog is, I don't think most of the computer using population would see one of his skins at first look at say 'That's a Treetog piece'.
Take an OSX screenshot, and show that instead, and the person will undoubtedly know what they're seeing.
[Message Edited]

#3 by Hippy - 8/7/2003 4:17:17 PM
I'd say that they're accepted because the original source of the work is known, as opposed to ripping off some unkown artists work.

Hey, every one knows Hippy right? Now, every one knows you, so the original source is know, now lets rip your Mean Machine theme

But for serious, if you don't use original graphics then it isn't ripping (in theory).

The first GUI was made by microsoft/bil gates, so actually we are all 'ripping' his idea, ow, and the most wb skins have a startbar, and then a 'double' menu, looks like xp to me

#24 by Skinner Styl skinner - 8/8/2003 4:00:43 AM The first GUI was made by microsoft/bil gates

Oh dear. You have no idea just how wrong you are!

But anyway, with regards to creating Mac lookalike skins, I agree wholeheartedly that they're rips. There's absolutely no artistic merit in taking a screenshot and cutting it up to make a skin. However, it seems that when it comes to rips of OS designs there's one rule for them and another for rips of skins. I'm not sure what that rule is exactly, or if it's in some big rulebook on a shelf somewhere, but I can say one thing for sure - you won't ever catch me making a lookalike skin.

Apple has every right to protect their intellectual property, just like everyone else. They happen to have more Jafos: Their legal department.

GH, Gui (graphical user interface) was used 'for public' first by microsoft, Dos isn't a GUI, the first commercial one was windows 3.11

Could be wrong but...

For all those who still don't know the history of GUIs, I direct you to this article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,9297,00.html

It's somewhat apt to this thread that Apple were there way before Microsoft.

Hmm, every time I read something about GUIs I clearly miss GEOS for the C-64. Was the first GUI I actually used...

These (infinitely recurrent) discussion always remind me of the "but when I play artist X' song one tone out of phase, I have created a new work" argument. Never quite know how what that one resulted in.

At any rate, the whole rip issue is moot for the big crowd out there. They just want Mickey Mouse skins and what not and truly do not care whether it are rips or not (for a variety of reasons).