Maybe its my imagination, but it looks like the GPL requirements get rolled out in force whenever the picture is the least bit erotic...even if only part of the picture is erotic.
Meanwhile, frames from Disney movies and you name it just sail right thru, unimpeded.
BTW: What constitutes "original work"? If only the silhouette of the girl was used, is that ok? How about false color, thumbnail (what size?), and every other combination/permutation available in GIMP?
In the midst of our hyper-moral orgy, let's be sure to remember honesty.
Before I think licensing, I ask if it's even any good... This us a montage of blurry pictures... So, no
And yeah, everyone into wallpapers seems to think GPL means "I don't know what to put here."
Is all your work, photograph too?
It seems like it's not (but cannot be sure) and still it is tagged as GPL.
It looks like many new linux users dont even know what GPL means. GPL dont mean everyone has freedom to do what ever they like with others work, GPL IS NOT somekind Anarchist license where anyone can take other work and license it as GPL if originial have not licensed it!
You're right: GPL doesn't mean that. It uses copyright for good, rather than disrespecting it for the bad things it does.
I'm not even sure your questions are relevant to this though; there's such a thing as fair use, which allows taking things such as photos and including them in your own work (such as montages), so long as it's sufficiently different from the original -- in other words, if it has sufficient creative merit in its own right.
GPL dont permit taking any other work what isn't already GPL license. Because GPL makes clear that you must give source.
So if i now download this, i can ask this picture maker to give me sources. And all those sources should be GPL.
In this case, i can ask all originals pictures in that format what is used. So if that original photograph of women was taken in RAW file and then later changed to JPEG, i must get RAW file if i ask it.
GPL dosn't allow to take others work and mark them as GPL even it would be only purpose to do nice wallpaper from movie star or someone else UNLESS original photo license is GPL too.
Almost all those pictures are copyrighted to original author who owns all rights and thats why no one cannot take those and relicense them as GPL if they dont have permission from copyright owner.
GPL is copyright license.
If you want to use someone others work in your own, there is _aways_ copyright about s/he work and you have to respect that by askin permit to use it. If copyright owner dont allow it to use, you cannot use it then and then you broke original author work by relicensing it by other license than original author wanted.
That is one reason why GPL was made, to protect original author rights so no one else couldn't change that and take away those rights what original author allowed.
Now this artist seems to taken someones else art what isn't GPL and lisenced it as GPL and so one is copyright criminal.
GPL dont work so well on art and thats why there is LGPL, Creative Commons and Artistic 2.0 licensed but those still has same rules as national copyright, no one cant take others work and license it as other if they dont have permit.
-----------
So now, i ask author to give me source files of this art work because it is GPL and i have that work but no source. And all work what he has used, should be GPL and not under any other license, because if there is material what is under other license and for what he dont have permit from original author (and permit to relicense it) then he is copyright breaker.
Ratings & Comments
6 Comments
Maybe its my imagination, but it looks like the GPL requirements get rolled out in force whenever the picture is the least bit erotic...even if only part of the picture is erotic. Meanwhile, frames from Disney movies and you name it just sail right thru, unimpeded. BTW: What constitutes "original work"? If only the silhouette of the girl was used, is that ok? How about false color, thumbnail (what size?), and every other combination/permutation available in GIMP? In the midst of our hyper-moral orgy, let's be sure to remember honesty.
Before I think licensing, I ask if it's even any good... This us a montage of blurry pictures... So, no And yeah, everyone into wallpapers seems to think GPL means "I don't know what to put here."
Is all your work, photograph too? It seems like it's not (but cannot be sure) and still it is tagged as GPL. It looks like many new linux users dont even know what GPL means. GPL dont mean everyone has freedom to do what ever they like with others work, GPL IS NOT somekind Anarchist license where anyone can take other work and license it as GPL if originial have not licensed it!
You're right: GPL doesn't mean that. It uses copyright for good, rather than disrespecting it for the bad things it does. I'm not even sure your questions are relevant to this though; there's such a thing as fair use, which allows taking things such as photos and including them in your own work (such as montages), so long as it's sufficiently different from the original -- in other words, if it has sufficient creative merit in its own right.
GPL dont permit taking any other work what isn't already GPL license. Because GPL makes clear that you must give source. So if i now download this, i can ask this picture maker to give me sources. And all those sources should be GPL. In this case, i can ask all originals pictures in that format what is used. So if that original photograph of women was taken in RAW file and then later changed to JPEG, i must get RAW file if i ask it. GPL dosn't allow to take others work and mark them as GPL even it would be only purpose to do nice wallpaper from movie star or someone else UNLESS original photo license is GPL too. Almost all those pictures are copyrighted to original author who owns all rights and thats why no one cannot take those and relicense them as GPL if they dont have permission from copyright owner. GPL is copyright license. If you want to use someone others work in your own, there is _aways_ copyright about s/he work and you have to respect that by askin permit to use it. If copyright owner dont allow it to use, you cannot use it then and then you broke original author work by relicensing it by other license than original author wanted. That is one reason why GPL was made, to protect original author rights so no one else couldn't change that and take away those rights what original author allowed. Now this artist seems to taken someones else art what isn't GPL and lisenced it as GPL and so one is copyright criminal. GPL dont work so well on art and thats why there is LGPL, Creative Commons and Artistic 2.0 licensed but those still has same rules as national copyright, no one cant take others work and license it as other if they dont have permit. ----------- So now, i ask author to give me source files of this art work because it is GPL and i have that work but no source. And all work what he has used, should be GPL and not under any other license, because if there is material what is under other license and for what he dont have permit from original author (and permit to relicense it) then he is copyright breaker.
Wrong. GPL doesn't permit using anything that isn't compatible. Big difference.