Well, everyone can get the links for the preview. They have it on a silver platter.
maryjd wrote:

I did an experiment to find out how easy it is for stuff to get stolen, because I was under the impression maybe Themelon was the problem. No, it seems our stuff is not really protected from being copied to another site even if it is not on Themelon. I tried inserting a link to another colourlover's pattern on my wordpress site- only to be published privately, then deleted, otherwise that would make me a flaming copyright infringement hypocrite... anyway, boom, there is was.

Yet, I cannot do anything with another person's Facebook photos. If Facebook can have the programming to protect files from being copied or linked to by someone who is unauthorized, Colourlovers can do the same thing! So why don't they... ?!

About the If Facebook can do it, why can't CL? argument:
We have to keep in mind that Facebook is a multimillion-dollar corporation with a staff the size of the population of China, while CL is run by a handful of people who depend on our sponsorships to keep it going. We are a teeny, tiny community compared to Facebook.
I imagine the software required to block downloading of images isn't cheap, and it probably takes some work to code the software into a site. We probably don't have the money or the manpower.
Please keep in mind: I'm not a programmer. I'm just speculating.

Class action

I think there are some awesome templates,patterns,palettes that aren't suppose to be used as cupcake wrappers.I read all this and am aware this is an Intellectual Property thievery.Hope things will come to sense and strong license agreements will be set.Otherwise it is considered immoral act of violating one's property.
All created by one's mind is his property.Therefore why bother mentioning Avicenna's name under his works and texts if it wasn't his intellectual genius who invented it.Oh my,oh my...

P.S. I wish they send me a box of those wrappers as I like making cupcakes for my kids...hahahha...:))

Rather than going to the defense to have people remove suff, It's easier to do prevention by protection of content. this can be done. (for the web master and web designer) I think you can use java script to prevent people from selecting, highlighting, right clicking, saving, editing, lifting info from protected webpages. People who don't want their shit taken can use that for the whole of CL to make their content completely undownloadable, except for people who specifically allow downloading (which shld be provided in a separate link.. Or just encase the website in flash. Save for the individual 'print screening' to get our patterns or replicating palettes from colours, it shld be a more secure method of safeguarding people's work.

an example of a webpage is http://eunpoong.com/. or even daum cafe's have this option of selecting no copy/lifting from webpage content. had a hard time once trying to copy some proverbs from this frustrating web page:
http://desert.tistory.com/3332

maybe you can investigate to find out how that is done and do the same for CL

UPDATE this conversation moved over here

UPDATE 1

then over here

UPDATE 2

I suggest reading through both to completely understand!

The bottom line is CL owns our work forever and can do whatever they want with it.
Darius said he doesn't exercise this power much

The Intellectual property options only apply to the public, CL admitted they are aware of a BUG in the API which they are working on

They are different circumstances...
This thread is still in use for stolen patterns without CL permission.
American Women wrote:

UPDATE this conversation moved over here

UPDATE 1

then over here

UPDATE 2

I suggest reading through both to completely understand!

The bottom line is CL owns our work forever and can do whatever they want with it.
Darius said he doesn't exercise this power much

The Intellectual property options only apply to the public, CL admitted they are aware of a BUG in the API which they are working on

oh I get it, like a loophole to avoid the bug?

GabsGiggles wrote:

They are different circumstances...
This thread is still in use for stolen patterns without CL permission.
American Women wrote:

UPDATE this conversation moved over here

UPDATE 1

then over here

UPDATE 2

I suggest reading through both to completely understand!

The bottom line is CL owns our work forever and can do whatever they want with it.
Darius said he doesn't exercise this power much

The Intellectual property options only apply to the public, CL admitted they are aware of a BUG in the API which they are working on

No, if you're referring to the API bug. Patterns were manually uploaded to these sites.

American Women wrote:

oh I get it, like a loophole to avoid the bug?

GabsGiggles wrote:

They are different circumstances...
This thread is still in use for stolen patterns without CL permission.
American Women wrote:

UPDATE this conversation moved over here

UPDATE 1

then over here

UPDATE 2

I suggest reading through both to completely understand!

The bottom line is CL owns our work forever and can do whatever they want with it.
Darius said he doesn't exercise this power much

The Intellectual property options only apply to the public, CL admitted they are aware of a BUG in the API which they are working on

o_O What do you mean? I'm talking about individuals who take them on their own.
American Women wrote:

oh I get it, like a loophole to avoid the bug?

GabsGiggles wrote:

They are different circumstances...
This thread is still in use for stolen patterns without CL permission.
American Women wrote:

UPDATE this conversation moved over here

UPDATE 1

then over here

UPDATE 2

I suggest reading through both to completely understand!

The bottom line is CL owns our work forever and can do whatever they want with it.
Darius said he doesn't exercise this power much

The Intellectual property options only apply to the public, CL admitted they are aware of a BUG in the API which they are working on

Faeleia's comment is about content protection. AW is redirecting her to the thread concerning content protection.
Redirection was needed most probably because of the titles/headers of the threads, which quite logically prompted Fae to comment in this one.

The headers are 'CL Pattern Thievery?', 'Is Google Stealing Our Patterns?', and 'Wordpress Partnership'. See the mix-up?

Solution? ( other than redirection)

Maybe make a group?

Gasp365 wrote:

Faeleia's comment is about content protection. AW is redirecting her to the thread concerning content protection.
Redirection was needed most probably because of the titles/headers of the threads, which quite logically prompted Fae to comment in this one.

The headers are 'CL Pattern Thievery?', 'Is Google Stealing Our Patterns?', and 'Wordpress Partnership'. See the mix-up?

Solution? ( other than redirection)

Yeah, Fae has commented here before. I've been involved in both threads since the beginning and the difference between these thread is basically one. The other two are about partnerships between CL and other sites. This thread is about sneaky people who take CL stuff and post them on their sites. Fae's concern applies in this case.

Since this is about thieves, naturally, protection is something we have discussed here before and adding a couple of more options to Fae's idea:
GabsGiggles wrote:

I thought we could have the control over the download section, the preview, and themeleon.

Creating more threads or a group won't do much because this is out of our hands. CL's Team is aware of this and of the ideas. They are experienced people in this area and they obviously know whats going on. But this is not as easy as it sounds. This is a small team so it will probably take more time until something is done.
Gasp365 wrote:

Faeleia's comment is about content protection. AW is redirecting her to the thread concerning content protection.
Redirection was needed most probably because of the titles/headers of the threads, which quite logically prompted Fae to comment in this one.

The headers are 'CL Pattern Thievery?', 'Is Google Stealing Our Patterns?', and 'Wordpress Partnership'. See the mix-up?

Solution? ( other than redirection)

Ah...To my knowledge I merely motivated for a solution to something.
I did not offer to create a group.
I wasn't questioning the CL teams decisions and reasons.
I fully understand and agree to why Fae placed her comment on this thread.

Oh I know, I tried to answer both messages but forgot to quote the other one. I know you understand, I just wanted to explain it to her, my bad.
Gasp365 wrote:

Ah...To my knowledge I merely motivated for a solution to something.
I did not offer to create a group.
I wasn't questioning the CL teams decisions and reasons.
I fully understand and agree to why Fae placed her comment on this thread.

This was the correct quotation.
American Women wrote:

Maybe make a group?

Gasp365 wrote:

Faeleia's comment is about content protection. AW is redirecting her to the thread concerning content protection.
Redirection was needed most probably because of the titles/headers of the threads, which quite logically prompted Fae to comment in this one.

The headers are 'CL Pattern Thievery?', 'Is Google Stealing Our Patterns?', and 'Wordpress Partnership'. See the mix-up?

Solution? ( other than redirection)

Yeah! The least they could do is sent a set of cupcake wrappers to the people who made the palette, template and pattern. It seems it is OK for anyone, cloth printers, fashion designers, other graphic artists can just take, take take.

I need to understand the options better. What does it mean if I set permissions to "X" and what does it mean if I change them to "Y", etc.? What does it mean if a well loved or older pattern undergoes a change in permissions?

I think that continuing to discuss is the best "hope" for things to improve. Working toward improvement doesn't mean that things are necessarily "wrong", instead that they can be better.

After all, everything changes over time. If things stay the same here as they were last year when the license discussion first happened, they will have regressed in actuality, because the world outside of CL will have progressed.

albenaj wrote:

I think there are some awesome templates,patterns,palettes that aren't suppose to be used as cupcake wrappers.I read all this and am aware this is an Intellectual Property thievery.Hope things will come to sense and strong license agreements will be set.Otherwise it is considered immoral act of violating one's property.
All created by one's mind is his property.Therefore why bother mentioning Avicenna's name under his works and texts if it wasn't his intellectual genius who invented it.Oh my,oh my...

P.S. I wish they send me a box of those wrappers as I like making cupcakes for my kids...hahahha...:))

But... it isn't okay. It's illegal. The problem is there's no protection in the programming of the site that stops it from being easy for people to do this illegal thing, simply copying colourlover's patterns and posting them elsewhere, even for commercial purposes, without the consent of the people who designed those patterns.

Permission agreements can be written or changed to legally allow others TO do things with an artists or designers creation, not to not do them. Without permission, no permission is the automatic default. Copyright is automatically owned by the creator. That is the international law.

ketisse wrote:

Yeah! The least they could do is sent a set of cupcake wrappers to the people who made the palette, template and pattern. It seems it is OK for anyone, cloth printers, fashion designers, other graphic artists can just take, take take.

I need to understand the options better. What does it mean if I set permissions to "X" and what does it mean if I change them to "Y", etc.? What does it mean if a well loved or older pattern undergoes a change in permissions?

I think that continuing to discuss is the best "hope" for things to improve. Working toward improvement doesn't mean that things are necessarily "wrong", instead that they can be better.

After all, everything changes over time. If things stay the same here as they were last year when the license discussion first happened, they will have regressed in actuality, because the world outside of CL will have progressed.

albenaj wrote:

I think there are some awesome templates,patterns,palettes that aren't suppose to be used as cupcake wrappers.I read all this and am aware this is an Intellectual Property thievery.Hope things will come to sense and strong license agreements will be set.Otherwise it is considered immoral act of violating one's property.
All created by one's mind is his property.Therefore why bother mentioning Avicenna's name under his works and texts if it wasn't his intellectual genius who invented it.Oh my,oh my...

P.S. I wish they send me a box of those wrappers as I like making cupcakes for my kids...hahahha...:))

Thank you maryjd - I was joking about the cupcake wrappers and the comment about things "not being 'wrong'" pertained to the efforts of COLOURlovers Admin. to support artists, regardless of whether they are amateur or professional, in protecting the creations we make here. We have some support. Now, we may need more.

I agree with you and just about everyone else who has posted here that anyone taking our creations and using them without our permission is not right.

If you saw my posts in the "IS GOOGLE STEALING OUR PATTERNS?" discussion, you'll see that I found many COLOURlovers patterns and palettes available for sale to bloggers who wish to select a color scheme for their blog templates. Darius responded and informed us that the announcement of a partnership with WordPress is forthcoming.

SINCE THAT POST, I was able to customize the new blog I created with COLOURlover content, of my choice, saved to my hard-drive and uploaded onto my WordPress profile without paying WordPress or the COLOURlover who created the template I used to make my pattern. However, I did not save the CL background I used for this experiment; instead, I used my own photographs to decorate my blog.

maryjd wrote:

But... it isn't okay. It's illegal. The problem is there's no protection in the programming of the site that stops it from being easy for people to do this illegal thing, simply copying colourlover's patterns and posting them elsewhere, even for commercial purposes, without the consent of the people who designed those patterns.

Permission agreements can be written or changed to legally allow others TO do things with an artists or designers creation, not to not do them. Without permission, no permission is the automatic default. Copyright is automatically owned by the creator. That is the international law.

ketisse wrote:

Yeah! The least they could do is sent a set of cupcake wrappers to the people who made the palette, template and pattern. It seems it is OK for anyone, cloth printers, fashion designers, other graphic artists can just take, take take.

I need to understand the options better. What does it mean if I set permissions to "X" and what does it mean if I change them to "Y", etc.? What does it mean if a well loved or older pattern undergoes a change in permissions?

I think that continuing to discuss is the best "hope" for things to improve. Working toward improvement doesn't mean that things are necessarily "wrong", instead that they can be better.

After all, everything changes over time. If things stay the same here as they were last year when the license discussion first happened, they will have regressed in actuality, because the world outside of CL will have progressed.

albenaj wrote:

I think there are some awesome templates,patterns,palettes that aren't suppose to be used as cupcake wrappers.I read all this and am aware this is an Intellectual Property thievery.Hope things will come to sense and strong license agreements will be set.Otherwise it is considered immoral act of violating one's property.
All created by one's mind is his property.Therefore why bother mentioning Avicenna's name under his works and texts if it wasn't his intellectual genius who invented it.Oh my,oh my...

P.S. I wish they send me a box of those wrappers as I like making cupcakes for my kids...hahahha...:))

Ah, you manually added the content. I've done that before. My old blog had the YCC's black cats pattern as a background.

As pointed out, all patterns are available for download by clicking "preview" and saving the imagine. All palettes are available for download in multiple formats. The Wordpress makes it easier and legal to apply the materials.One major "pro" in the Wordpress/CL collab is this may cut down on people stealing patterns and palettes and manually uploading them onto their blogs. Another pro is that CL will gain more recognition (though I have my reservations about that)

Overall, this could be good for us! I'm staying optimistic. :)

BTW: http://www.feroniaproject.org/

ketisse wrote:

SINCE THAT POST, I was able to customize the new blog I created with COLOURlover content, of my choice, saved to my hard-drive and uploaded onto my WordPress profile without paying WordPress or the COLOURlover who created the template I used to make my pattern. However, I did not save the CL background I used for this experiment; instead, I used my own photographs to decorate my blog.

yup, thanks gabs. I was referring to content protection more from a defensive stance for the users. It seems like people are generally concerned with having their stuff taken out by other people who are not bubs. I thought if so, then might as well just pre-empt and make things not so easy to remove in the first place. Although, if social websites use our patterns, it's a form of publicity in a way.

Iif protecting our content from being copied is not feasible, then the next best option is setting privacy levels? like viewable to members/ group members or some list would also add some basic level of protection. but personally, I'm all for viewable to all, but not copiable method.

So just weigh your options... before anything is implemented, the best way is not to publish anything you absolutely do not want stolen.