That art would fall under fair use "Fair use occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary, rather than secondary, meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to result."
I dont know if its compressed or not however bmp is also uncompressed but it makes sence to allow it and i see no downside to allowing xpm, ideally in my opinion OGA would allow all formats except for some (.exe for example) however thats not possible with the current site design.
Agreed, and there are no identifiable features, oh and how many times you seen a town center with stonhenge in the middle, a castle on the left with its lights on, with archery targets under it, a red seperater wall for the road, mountians with a rainbow in the background, 6 buildings on the right (3 in foreground 3 in background), a red pedistle tower with 2 platforms, a dock in the left foreground, a statue with red and blue crystals pointing up from the ground in a circle around it, a well with a hinge based buchet pull, a brown tower in the middle, and a moat around the castle with a path going up to it.
The issue is that its close enough that you could be sued, would you win, id say you probably would, but you -could- lose as it is defently in the gray area.
The layout the design the look and feel are all very close and some elements look almost traced over. (tracing is copyright infringment)
Personally I think that it isnt infringing however I dont want people to assume they wont be and end up getting sued, as the only major diference between the 2 pictures is the brown tower in the middle, the others elements are incredibly close.
Also you have to realise that while this is an amazing piece if it was a terrable piece we wouldnt have this discussion, the quality of the art however has no bearing on if its infringing or not.
The trademark is actually only part of the issue and actually its prolly the least of the issues.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses. Allowed as a pre-existing commonplace element, provided it is a drawing of a generic boy, and does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses labelled “Harry Potter”. Allowed under the same conditions as above. The mere addition of the words “Harry Potter” do not turn a generic representation into an infringing copy. There is no copyright in a mere allusion.
A drawing of a boy in a wizard hat and robes, whether or not labelled “Harry Potter”. Allowed as a pre-existing commonplace element, provided it is a drawing of a generic boy wizard, and does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses, with a zig-zag scar on his forehead, whether or not labelled “Harry Potter”. Here, the combination of features taken may be unique to the character in JK Rowling's novels, but such a combination is in itself likely to be considered an uncopyrightable idea in the US courts. Also, as stated above, the English courts do not recognise the concept of copyright in a literary character at all. This should therefore be allowed, provided it does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games. However, drawings with this much JK Rowling detail or more should be reviewed carefully to ensure that they are not actually copied from a screen representation. If there is doubt the precautionary principle should be applied.
This falls under catagory 4, the labeling -may- be an issue but not a copyright one. There is still the issue of copyright, it may be different enough that it should be ok but it also is close enough it may not be.
gd supports xpm
That is a great idea in theory, however nearly impossible in pratice, for example in some countries art with blood in it is illegal.
I have removed the liscense issue on this font, it should have been removed long ago
this has been fixed :)
That art would fall under fair use "Fair use occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary, rather than secondary, meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to result."
I dont know if its compressed or not however bmp is also uncompressed but it makes sence to allow it and i see no downside to allowing xpm, ideally in my opinion OGA would allow all formats except for some (.exe for example) however thats not possible with the current site design.
xpm should be an allowed format now
The issues was we are trying to see why its -not- infringing, rather then trying to see how it -could- be infringing, that is the problem.
Agreed, and there are no identifiable features, oh and how many times you seen a town center with stonhenge in the middle, a castle on the left with its lights on, with archery targets under it, a red seperater wall for the road, mountians with a rainbow in the background, 6 buildings on the right (3 in foreground 3 in background), a red pedistle tower with 2 platforms, a dock in the left foreground, a statue with red and blue crystals pointing up from the ground in a circle around it, a well with a hinge based buchet pull, a brown tower in the middle, and a moat around the castle with a path going up to it.
The issue is that its close enough that you could be sued, would you win, id say you probably would, but you -could- lose as it is defently in the gray area.
The layout the design the look and feel are all very close and some elements look almost traced over. (tracing is copyright infringment)
Personally I think that it isnt infringing however I dont want people to assume they wont be and end up getting sued, as the only major diference between the 2 pictures is the brown tower in the middle, the others elements are incredibly close.
Also you have to realise that while this is an amazing piece if it was a terrable piece we wouldnt have this discussion, the quality of the art however has no bearing on if its infringing or not.
The trademark is actually only part of the issue and actually its prolly the least of the issues.
This falls under catagory 4, the labeling -may- be an issue but not a copyright one. There is still the issue of copyright, it may be different enough that it should be ok but it also is close enough it may not be.
Pages