111–120 of 168 posts
I've got another less exciting reason how it ended up there... someone at Sony or one of their contractors found it on here: http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-icons... It says there "commercial usage allowed". They probably didn't even know it was from KDE.
Really? Sue them for all they are worth?
Go ahead and try, but you need money to sue and no Judge is going to award you "All they are worth" over an icon.
You haven't lost anything with Sony using this icon. You have gained because now there is an subconscious association between Sony and KDE.
Well, for those that even recognise that it is KDE artwork to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, commercial use is allowed, but the LGPL requires attribution. The site you give does link prominently to the LGPL license.
These sites don't. http://www.tineye.com/search/20fd99e0d87a8d04e30b5c307d81b49...
This icon seems to be very popular indeed...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty clear Sony did not intend to do this How can you say this? If you've ever worked in a corporate environment, you know that layers and layers of reviews and supervision and requirements exist to prevent any mis-step. If this image flew through that process, then Sony knows what it did. I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. My assumption about Sony's massive, multi-review process is far more like…
| If this image flew through that process, then | Sony knows what it did. So there are people at Sony that can determine the source of a random icon presented to them with 100% accuracy? It's impossible that some lowly contractor somewhere copied it, and lied about it to management? It's impossible that there was human error along the way in the review process?
I'm torn on this whole issue. On the one hand, I think the world would be a much better place if we didn't have silly draconian copyright laws, so I don't like to see those silly laws given any further legitimacy by using them (and I write that as a guy who makes his living creating stuff that is protected by copyright). On the other hand, those laws are laws because of companies like Sony, and hoping they won't be used doesn't stop them being laws.
I suspect if companies like Sony started paying obscenely disproportionate fines for careless minor infringements, this might be the fastest way to get the problem fixed, though regrettably with significant collateral damage resulting along the way. For example, if they have sponsored laws that call for criminal sanctions against individuals who infringe copyright for commercial gain, those laws should be hovering over any conceivably responsible individuals at Sony and anywhere they outsourced to as well in cases like this. If merely working for a company like Sony on any creative project is potentially enough to get you a criminal record, the true damage caused by draconian copyright laws will become apparent to them very quickly (and probably quite briefly, since it seems unlikely that a company that became so toxic to employees and agencies would last very long).
I really dislike that I've come to that conclusion, but looking at the world as it is rather than as I wish it to be, I have trouble seeing any more logical outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought at first it was a positive introduction: "the company who created Audio CDs".
Also known as the last honest and not deliberately crippled or degraded product to come out of the music industry.
Look at the "Boot" logo. IMHO this is from transmission torrent client.
The KDE Developer that wrote this needs to take a deep breath...they asked: "Should KDE e.V. and Nuno's Oxygen friends start a new business model by sueing them for everything they're worth?" Really? Sue them for all they are worth? Go ahead and try, but you need money to sue and no Judge is going to award you "All they are worth" over an icon. You haven't lost anything with Sony using this icon. You have gained beca…
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think those of us at KDE would find it desirable to have that association in people's minds. I would actually say that would be a negative.
> Well, for those that even recognise that it is KDE artwork to begin with.
So only artwork which has saturated the public eye warrants protection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think KDE's source control system would prove otherwise...
I doubt Sony's lawyers care about that. KDE would care about trial costs, though. Do they have a budget for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. We should give the benefit of the doubt in cases regarding commercial use from copyright infringement. If its a 9 year old who is downloading a song, then she must be aware of copyright law and thus can't be given the same benefit of the doubt. That girl is a pirate. Is it just me who thinks this logic is wrong?
Really they should have handled this the same way as the other case. Sent a 600€ request (or 6000€) for a donation to KDE and a NDA and possibly a licensing agreement. It's pretty clear Sony did not intend to do this and most likely just a placeholder image left in by mistake. Who at Sony would think saving 300$ on designing the image outweighs the risk of this.
You've never met a designer in your life, have you?
