150 Widescreen HD Wallpaper images

[zridling]

Most are 1920x1200. Nice!


(rar file)

[app103]

These are some nice wallpapers, but the problem I have with them is that the blog that is offering this download doesn't do anything to credit the original artists responsible for these works, and there is nothing to indicate that the blogger has permission to share them or that he created these himself.

I was able to track down a few of the artists from various watermarks/signatures on some of the images, and it appears that some are Creative Commons licensed and perfectly acceptable to redistribute, but again, the required licensing info and credits are not included in the download.

[Innuendo]

Yeah, I've downloaded a cubic butt-load of HD wallpaper packs over the last couple months, but I'd be very reluctant to share them here for the reason April just touched on.

[zridling]

Never heard this objection to wallpapers. How would you do it other than watermarking them and ruining them? Flikr is the goldmine of all wallpapers and avatars. Doesn't matter to me. I'm just enjoying them, not repackaging and redistributing for profit.

[app103]

Never heard this objection to wallpapers. How would you do it other than watermarking them and ruining them? Flikr is the goldmine of all wallpapers and avatars. Doesn't matter to me. I'm just enjoying them, not repackaging and redistributing for profit.

-zridling (December 11, 2009, 03:05 PM)

I like to know whose work I am admiring and I like to visit their site and see if they have more.

And artists deserve full credit!

If it were your art that was being swiped and redistributed without credit, you'd probably understand why this is so wrong.

I have had some of my stuff swiped, cropped, included in a scrap kit, no credit given, and the person that did it had the gall to slap a CC license on my copyrighted work and demand full credit and link to her site if anyone used it.

I have also found my work altered and offered for sale on a stock photo site.

Giving credit on a wallpaper pack is not hard. How about including a text file with entries like this:

file name
artist
URL
license type

If you can't do that and only distribute things you have a legal right/license to distribute, maybe you shouldn't be distributing it at all.

It's like giving out a pack of ebooks and never letting the user know who the authors are, or music without artist names, or software without developer info.

[zridling]

Except no one is selling these photos. I've seen links to this same 150-Photo pack combined with the National Geographic wallpaper set all over the place this week. Perhaps we should then scour every post on the donationcoder.com domain and check for photo credits? If we don't find them on each photo, will you also ask mouser to remove them? You could also go further, as Rupert Murdoch did, and ask Google to take down its image search feature? Most of those links to images are uncredited, so you've got a lot of work in front of you. (See the Perfect10 case, for example.) Or at the least, you could ask: How is it that words like "mine," "ownership," and "control" have become so pervasive in an environment that allows unprecedented access to creative work?

It's a question of where you draw the line. If it's at redistribution for resale, fine. But let's be clear: that's not what this link is doing. Quite a few wallpaper images are public domain at this point. The blogger does not attach a "May not be reproduced" copyright warning on the images under his name, nor is he claiming they are his. If you're in the US, you owe it to yourself to read the US Copyright Law (Section 512, DMCA takedowns) and walk the walk.

[app103]

Well, gee... Lots of sympathy for art thieves from you.

I don't know about you, but I don't like being cheated. And I am being cheated of knowing who the artists are. I have a right to know. And the artists are being cheated of credit and being deprived of traffic to their websites.

No wallpapers are public domain unless the artist is well past dead (70 years past, to be exact) or has deliberately and knowingly placed it in the public domain. If any of the artists from that wallpaper pack is still alive, their rights are being violated, because none of it is in the public domain. (go read your copyright law again and pay attention to this page)

Maybe the original artist has a "May not be reproduced" on their own site...not that they technically need that on it. How would I know when there is no credit given? Maybe it's all CC licensed and I can alter it and improve it and redistribute it myself. Again, how would I know when no credit is given? It might not even have been intended to be free and the artist is selling the wallpaper. Again, how would I know when there is no credit?

And maybe the artist has a paypal button on their site that I might want to click and show my appreciation of their work. But how can I when no credit is given?

Google image search links to the site in which the image was found. That's enough effort to give credit, as far as I am concerned. That kind of credit drives traffic to many artists sites.

I don't care if you give away my copyrighted art for free or charge a fee for it, if I didn't license it for that you are infringing on my rights. Yes it is mine. I created it. I can set whatever terms I want for it. I have a wallpaper site with my works on it. I don't want anyone posting my art on their site. If you want my art you go to my site where I profit from the traffic. You don't like that? Well, tough...it's MY work...not yours. If I authorize you to display it on your desktop, then that is all you can do with it...your desktop...not your website, not someone else's site, not a collection, not a web page background.

And the works that I have CC licensed better have a credit link to my site wherever you use or distribute it or you are violating that license as well.

And I have read the copyright law, and I have sent out DMCA notices a plenty for people that infringe on my rights. I walk the walk, buddy. And I have demanded my links for the CC licensed stuff too. And if you are suggesting that I issue a DMCA notice to this site for their wallpaper collection, then you better read that copyright law page again, because that is for the copyright holder to do. Nobody else is authorized to do it on behalf of the owner unless they have designated that person as an official representative.


How would you feel if someone decided to offer a new free linux distro stripped of the GPL and any credits to the developers? But everything must be free, you say? And as long as you don't charge money for it, it's all ok? As long as everyone else is doing it, it's ok? To hell with anyone's rights to profit from their work? To hell with complying with Creative Commons licenses that require credit? 

[zridling]

Well, gee... Lots of sympathy for art thieves from you.
....
How would you feel if someone decided to offer a new free linux distro stripped of the GPL and any credits to the developers? But everything must be free, you say? And as long as you don't charge money for it, it's all ok? As long as everyone else is doing it, it's ok? To hell with anyone's rights to profit from their work? To hell with complying with Creative Commons licenses that require credit?    

-app103 (December 12, 2009, 02:07 AM)

Wow, if you're offended by this post and the link to the photo download file, then your self-righteousness puts a lot of work in front of you. It's funny how your anger is so selective on this day. I searched the term "wallpaper" on DC and found quite a few topics on wallpapers, wallpaper software, and lots of cody stuff. But you didn't object to this post at the time by me. Only now. Among other things, it appears you also confuse copyright duration with works in the public domain. Read more closely: the industry wrote that law and got it passed and repassed over and over; duration is always extended, never reduced. In some cases it lasts 120 years!

The vast number of assumptions you're making are astounding, as if the poster stole the images among them.  And it's also funny that you chose this topic to reveal your anger. Again, you and I have been on DC for years and I've posted images with most of my topics, as have some others. Why now? And you're making my argument for me when you write: "If I authorize you to display it on your desktop, then that is all you can do with it...your desktop...not your website, not someone else's site, not a collection, not a web page background."
________________
>How would you feel if someone decided to offer a new free linux distro stripped of the GPL and any credits to the developers?
It's done all the time. Microsoft just got popped over open code it last month. Yet you're still using Microsoft's OS right now. That doesn't seem to bother you, so I guess you don't mind paying corporations to rip others off. Oh, but wait, the code is free! The only limitation being that you give back the code you added so others can benefit as Microsoft did in that case.

Cisco and others continue to do the same. And Microsoft-funded SCO has been resurrected again to run the whole "who owns Unix" thing through the courts for another ten years.

>But everything must be free, you say?
Where did I say that? Another assumption. Open source does not equal free. You very well know that.

>As long as everyone else is doing it, it's ok?
So I take it that only these 150 wallpapers offend your sensitivities, or does any image used without permission? If it's the latter, then why have you waited until now on this very forum to speak up, when there are thousands of "unlicensed" images used throughout DC? Lest you appear hypocritical, I would love to know when and where you asked mouser to take down images that didn't meet your approval.

>To hell with anyone's rights to profit from their work? To hell with complying with Creative Commons licenses that require credit?
Another set of assumptions. How do you know they're all licensed? Which other licenses might be involved?

If this bothers you so much, I want to see how far you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. I want to see where you draw the line in all the software you use, every site you regularly visit, whether when you watch TV and see images that are not credited on the newscast that you don't call the station and ask for their rights to broadcast the image, and so on. It's a slippery slope, indeed. But ask yourself: have you paid for every single thing or at least obtained a license or explicit permission to download all you've downloaded over the years?

So please, lighten up. It's freakin' wallpapers April, not the end of the world.   (not angry)

[app103]

You give a post from August 2005 as an example of where I was supposed to jump in and say something? I never saw that thread. I didn't join this site till January of 2006.

Maybe I am as angry as I am because of your attitude.

I am not offended by this post. I am offended by you defending it as if the artists have no rights.

Remember something...I am not just a software developer, I am also an artist...one that makes wallpapers. And my daughter is too.

How about I march over to your blog and take 150 posts of yours and republish them somewhere else without credit, just to boost my own popularity and drive traffic to my site? What would be the difference?

It would just be your work that you spend a lot of time and effort on, not the end of the world.

Why don't you make posts with links to warez sites here on DC? What would be the difference?

Over an hour later and this is still spinning in my head and I am still fuming over it. I hate when people treat others as slave labor and do not give them the credit and respect that they not only deserve, but they are entitled to.

And I hate the "everything should be free and nobody should be allowed to profit from their work or have any control over its distribution" mentality. And the "licenses are made to be ignored and it's all ok as long as I don't charge money for it" mentality.

Even when you are nice enough to give it away for free, and nice enough to slap a more than generous CC license on it, it's not good enough for some people.

How is it not theft to go around the internet snagging wallpapers off of a bunch of artists websites, ignoring copyrights, ignoring requirements of a CC license, just to package it all up and stick it on your own site in order to boost your popularity and drive traffic to yourself? In what universe is this right? Certainly not mine!

There is no difference between stealing 150 wallpapers off of assorted artists websites, packaging them up as a collection, and offering them for download on your own site, without permission or credit, just to boost your popularity and gain traffic...and stealing 150 blog articles and republishing them on your own blog without permission or credit, for the same reason. In both cases people are being cheated, violated, disrespected, abused, victimized, and exploited. This is NOT ok! It doesn't matter if you are doing it for free, it's still not ok. It's theft, plain & simple.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft does...150 images were stolen and redistributed, improperly.

It doesn't matter if I never spoke up before today...150 images were stolen and redistributed, improperly.

You know what? It's people like you that make me want to delete everything I have ever made from the internet, all of it, the art, the software, everything...even the stuff I released with a CC license, lest I be exploited and abused like the artists of these wallpapers and everyone thinking that it is somehow ok. Now I understand why my daughter made me take down the bulk of her work from our site. Now I understand why she won't post her best work online any more and keeps it hidden away.

Yes, I am VERY angry. Angry to the point of tears!

[app103]

Maybe, just maybe, I devote a portion of every day attempting to be a better human being than I was yesterday.

Maybe I care more today than I did yesterday. I don't consider that to be the definition of a hypocrite.

And maybe, just maybe, there was an image in that pack that I really liked and wanted to know who the artist was.

Maybe it just all came together, right here.

Maybe that's why I spoke up about all this, in this thread, and let my feelings loose.

[zridling]

You aren't the first self-appointed moderator here at DC; I'm sure you won't be the last.

This topic was apples; your response was oranges. You chose to make this simple topic post a platform for your "feelings" about something it was not: copyright, licensing, and fair use. It would have been defensible had you taken up a new topic for that, because it's deeply interesting and important to all of us living in this century. But posting a link to wallpapers is not equal to theft -- nor do I favor stealing -- of anyone's work. So don't put words in my mouth, and then argue against your own straw men. As you stated, you draw the line with me here, but not with every other blogger on the planet, with Microsoft, Google, Bing, Yahoo, and lots of others who thumbnail link to unlicensed images.

I urge you not to be angry, but to choose your battles more wisely. This wasn't worth it unless you are willing to argue consistently that every uncredited image on this domain be taken down. And if you're creating art you don't want anyone to see just to get paid, maybe you shouldn't be an artist but a businesswoman (who sells art). As far as I know, Google is the only company that's figured out how to make money off the internet! I certainly haven't.

[Shades]

Is it not possible to put all the info regarding your work (your name, the title of the work, URL, mail address, distribution license etc.) into EXIF? Pictures/photo's retain that info when copied as far as I understand, giving you an opportunity to supply anybody with the info they require to get back in touch with you about your work.

Ah well, it's maybe a stupid idea privacy-wise...but the principal sounds ok to me.

My collection of wallpapers has grown steadily since my first PC (1995) and I wouldn't mind seeing what some artists from those days have produced since their demo days. Problem is that they were not too generous with info, most of it was similar to 'Copyrighted by <insert nickname>' or a nickname in a corner. Finding out who did what is too much time robbery if you ask me.

Anyway, nowadays things have improved with sites like Interfacelift, though. All info and their other work is available right there. When downloading a picture/photo from their site it has a formatted and descriptive file name as well. Because of that site I couldn't be bothered to surf for wallpapers on (obscure) blogs anymore and I advice other people that see my wallpapers to go there instead of letting them making a copy.

[app103]

Zaine, I would like to introduce you to one of the 150 artists that were violated in this wallpaper pack...

Meet "broalex", a photographer that is trying to earn a living from his work.

The zebra image included in this wallpaper pack was never intended to be redistributed, free of charge.

By including it in this pack, not only is he being deprived of proper credit for a fantastic photo, he is also being deprived of an income.

By posting a link to this pack on this forum, you are hurting him and helping to reduce the market value of his photograph.

Sometimes it's easy to not think about how things affect other people, when you have no idea who they are. But once there is a face attached to it, often it becomes easier to understand the truth. Go look at his face and think about it.