But here we're clever and we know that behind Sony, this is the mistake of a stupid web developer. Right?
EDIT: http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-icons...
This thread is a nice flame war.
Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
131–140 of 168 posts
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#132Earlier 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?
Of course she should be given the benefit of the doubt too. See, if you as an outsider want to make sure that all parties are held to the same standard then you should be willing to apply that standard to your worst enemy as well. Note that I am not in any way defending Sony or their conduct, I just want the same standard that I'd like to apply to downloading music to apply to this instance of possible copyright viol…
I don't think it's necessary to use the same standard in personal-use and commercial-use situations. The current law already makes such a distinction. That seems reasonable and consistent to me.
So, get back to us when the 9-year-old uses the pirated music to attract business to her lemonade stand.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#133As a former Sony employee although in the consumer TV's business rather than either Vaio or Sony Music I'm pretty confident it is a mistake and that it is likely to be fixed. [The Sony TV's came with a paper license in the box for all the various open source licenses of the software included in the TV and I believe there is a website with all the relevant source.]
If it is used in a website is it really a breach of the terms of the LGPL? I thought that the whole point behind the Affero GPL was that the normal GPL/LGPL did not prevent you using software server side to present a service to users without the requirement to distribute the source. Given that I'm not sure what the status would be of an image under LGPL (dual license with Creative Commons Sharealike, attribution as mentioned by another commenter) being served as part of the website software. Now maybe it is reasonable to say that Javascript and images are actually distributed to every browser accessing the page and that therefore source code and license must be made available but it isn't completely clear to me.
Whatever the technical legal case it was bad form and most likely a mistake for Sony to use this icon in this way.
Edit to add: Sony is a massive sprawling multi-limbed business with actions from different parts sometimes not just contradictory but conflicting at times. It is all done under the Sony name so it is fair that bad in addition to good actions are reflected in the reputation but the reality is that there is very little shared between the Music arm putting out rootkits (about eight years ago - maybe it is time to move on) and the electronics side.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#134Unfortunately, I honestly think the best course of action is to sue Sony for every penny possible. The case needs to get as much press and possible, and people need to see how completely ridiculous the whole thing is. More and more cases like this need to tie up the court system, wasting everyone's time and money. This is the only way we'll get copyright reform.
A part of me would like to see such a torching strategy. Yet I feel a strong resistance from another part of myself -- a part of me that believes that OSS would do better by taking the high road, by continuing to be one of the few areas/markets/communities, commercial or otherwise, that lives the life it preaches for the world. If OSS devolves to "one of the pack", then I feel like we'd lose something fundamental and…
Oh no, I don't want them to win. At most, SONY will just add a "we use icons from KDE, licensed under LGPL" as a tiny text somewhere. The goal isn't to win a case against SONY and score massive profits from damages. The goal is to not be on the wrong end of a suit.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course she should be given the benefit of the doubt too. See, if you as an outsider want to make sure that all parties are held to the same standard then you should be willing to apply that standard to your worst enemy as well. Note that I am not in any way defending Sony or their conduct, I just want the same standard that I'd like to apply to downloading music to apply to this instance of possible copyright viol…
I agree that we should hold all parties to the same standard no matter who the party is, but commercial usage should add additional expectations from the defending party. Commercial use is commonly perceived as "worse" than if it's done for private/non-profit use. But my initial comment was mostly to acknowledge that we do not give the benefit of doubt to private persons, but we do to commercial entities. The law sho…
I work in advertising for multi-national clients the size of Sony, and believe me, acquiring the rights to images is a hugely important step in any marketing campaign. Most likely Sony hired an outside firm to create them a logo, and that firm copied it instead. I have no doubt Sony will apologize and pay a standard fee plus some for its use. If you think a huge corporation like Sony, with billions of dollars of sales a year, is purposely looking to rip off a single $1000 logo and hoping nobody would notice, you don't understand big business.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really they should have handled this the same way as the other case. Sent a 600€ request (or 6000€) for a donation to KDE and a NDA and possibly a licensing agreement. It's pretty clear Sony did not intend to do this and most likely just a placeholder image left in by mistake. Who at Sony would think saving 300$ on designing the image outweighs the risk of this.
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…
I work in an environment similar to this (an outside agency working with a large multi-national) and believe me, I CAN believe that this is an unintentional mistake. Also, there's not "multiple layers and layers of reviews" for small "build your vaio" websites such as this. Sony may be large, but that doesn't mean it's CEO, legal team, or any senior person with a VP or C-level title ever saw this.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#137Unfortunately, I honestly think the best course of action is to sue Sony for every penny possible. The case needs to get as much press and possible, and people need to see how completely ridiculous the whole thing is. More and more cases like this need to tie up the court system, wasting everyone's time and money. This is the only way we'll get copyright reform.
"Every penny possible" is like $1000, which is the going rate for icon licensing. Sony would just pay it. No "copyright reform" will happen from this.
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have gained because now there is an subconscious association between Sony and KDE. 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?
Oh, no, I surely think that Sony did wrong and needs to admit the mistake but that picking and choosing one's battles might be more appropriate here. I disagree with the author's blog post on making a big stink and "suing them for all they are worth". Yes, maybe just a saying that everyone understands the meaning to but it doesn't lent any credibility or help justify the issue at hand. Which is Sony used the artwork.…
Is it hyperbole, really, when the same argument would be applied in the opposite direction?
I know that KDE somehow has a reputation for quiet professionalism [1], but I don't think that should extend to a developer's personal opinion, nor do I think that pointing out the hyperbole of someone else is itself an example of hyperbole. Especially when the hyperbole is so obviously hyperbolic!
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#139I like Sony, but some stuff they did in the past was highly questionable and may come back to haunt them, specially when some random artist at them use someone else artwork. The best thing Sony can do is fix this, say sorry, and punish the guy that did this. But.I have a hunch that they won't do that.
They most certainly will pay $1000 to license the image, or change it, AND punish the person who did that... What makes you think Sony won't work they way every large corporation works in this respect?
Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that we should hold all parties to the same standard no matter who the party is, but commercial usage should add additional expectations from the defending party. Commercial use is commonly perceived as "worse" than if it's done for private/non-profit use. But my initial comment was mostly to acknowledge that we do not give the benefit of doubt to private persons, but we do to commercial entities. The law sho…
I work in advertising for multi-national clients the size of Sony, and believe me, acquiring the rights to images is a hugely important step in any marketing campaign. Most likely Sony hired an outside firm to create them a logo, and that firm copied it instead. I have no doubt Sony will apologize and pay a standard fee plus some for its use. If you think a huge corporation like Sony, with billions of dollars of sale…
What is the likely reaction going to be for the agency that was supposed to create this for Sony? Will they just be fired from doing work for Sony, or are there any clawback provisions for the firm submitting supposedly original work that wasn't?