I respectfully disagree.

As a writer, I see no basic difference between arranging words and arranging colors. As a musician, I see no basic difference between arranging notes or chords and arranging colors.

And while each of us has our own personal view about this, Albenaj's palette and Any Palacios' template combined by a third COLOURlover deserves the same respect as my original poem and your novel and American Women's song. All are a creative expressions and all qualified as intellectual property (even if shared).

The color combination you make is different from a written creation, but it is just as significant. If the fact that Wordpress is paying the COLOURlovers organization for them is not enough, I am not sure what other proof we need.

Your choice not to object to someone using your creations does not remove your right to object. Darius took steps to that end last year.

EverydayMiracles wrote:

... I don't consider a collection of colours, when placed together in any order, to be my sole property, and I will never object if another person chooses to use my palettes.

I think that what bugs me personally is that it's so simple really, to credit another person for their work. I enjoy making HTML templates that I have used (in the past) in role playing games. Some of the palettes that I've created here have been created for the use in these templates, in fact, and I've used other palettes as well (with full credit to the original creator of the palette included with a link to their profile page here on CL).

But you know what I always found strange? More often than one might think, I'd run into a person who had painstakingly removed the copyright credit from the template that they were using. It takes more work to remove the copyright than to leave it on, and yet that is precisely what people did more often than not. Sometimes these copyrights are embedded. I have some templates of my own where they were, and I could probably dig them out and show them to you. You can't even see them and people would take them out.

THAT is what I really don't get.

Sorry, that was a minor divergence.

I would personally prefer for my work NOT to be used for commercial use if I am not making money from the commercial use of my intellectual property. For that reason, I'd prefer it not to be used for commercial purposes at all. For non-commercial use, I would like credit, but I gave up on this fight ages ago.

OrigamiMei wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that all of us are upset that we're not being paid for the use of our work. I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about the money. What I care about is being credited for the work I've done.

The Bottom line is none of you would let someone come into your house, take your property, sell it for a profit, and then agree that in the long run it is in your best interest!

It doesn't make any sense!

I am looking forward to a solution that benefits us all! Whether we choose to opt in or not!

I'm not saying that I don't feel that another person has every right to their feelings or their say in how their intellectual property is used. Isn't that the basic premise of what creative commons is all about, after all? Each of us has the ability to decide what license we publish content under. I am not personally going to be upset if something that I create (solely my own, mind you) is taken and the copyright notice is removed. I don't even really mind in the aforementioned example regarding HTML codes, provided that the codes from which the credit is removed are my sole property.

Some of this is, perhaps, a moral objection to the fact that there are a lot of people who believe that an item, when taken and rearranged or edited, now belongs to the person who did the rearranging or the editing, and that the original source doesn't need to be credited for the material. In almost every case, when I've used another person's codes to help me learn how to create my own codes, I credit the original coder in my copyright notice, even though the strings of code themselves are not copyright (for example, a section of CSS where everything about it is changed from the colours to the widths, and all I kept is the properties so I can learn from them).

It's very possible that I'm wrong, but I don't believe that any of us own the copyright on the colours that we've named. We may hold a copyright on the combination of that exact colour (by RBG value) and the name that we gave it, but the colour itself is naturally occurring or it wouldn't be something that we can uncover and name in the first place.

Whether we agree or disagree on this particular issue is irrelevant, provided that I respect your rights to your property (and I do) and that you respect my rights to mine (and I assume that you do). That's part of what makes this a learning experience, I suppose.


ketisse wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

As a writer, I see no basic difference between arranging words and arranging colors. As a musician, I see no basic difference between arranging notes or chords and arranging colors.

And while each of us has our own personal view about this, Albenaj's palette and Any Palacios' template combined by a third COLOURlover deserves the same respect as my original poem and your novel and American Women's song. All are a creative expressions and all qualified as intellectual property (even if shared).

The color combination you make is different from a written creation, but it is just as significant. If the fact that Wordpress is paying the COLOURlovers organization for them is not enough, I am not sure what other proof we need.

Your choice not to object to someone using your creations does not remove your right to object. Darius took steps to that end last year.

Exactly.

Gasp365 wrote:

Hm...It raises the question of what most people come to CL for.

I suspect that most who frequent CL are here simply for the recreational value. Personally the things that I make a living out of, I certainly do not create here nor post here.

I don't use CL as my platform where I create things to make a living out of and I would not have CL carry the responsibility of my work ( own not partial). I carry that myself.

Anybody who doesn't care about The Topic of this discussion shouldn't even be in it!

OrigamiMei wrote:

Exactly.

Gasp365 wrote:

Hm...It raises the question of what most people come to CL for.

I suspect that most who frequent CL are here simply for the recreational value. Personally the things that I make a living out of, I certainly do not create here nor post here.

I don't use CL as my platform where I create things to make a living out of and I would not have CL carry the responsibility of my work ( own not partial). I carry that myself.

Yeah. Also the initial reason of all this was to protect out stuff. And by the Creative Common we have it, now we demand our rights.

Now, to get money from it, I think that's another issue. I feel we're mixing things up and this is getting more unproductive than the other way around.
OrigamiMei wrote:

Exactly.

Gasp365 wrote:

Hm...It raises the question of what most people come to CL for.

I suspect that most who frequent CL are here simply for the recreational value. Personally the things that I make a living out of, I certainly do not create here nor post here.

I don't use CL as my platform where I create things to make a living out of and I would not have CL carry the responsibility of my work ( own not partial). I carry that myself.

Many are professionals here; others are not. Those here for recreation get love from a cross-section of the community and benefit from the experience, taking confidence to other areas of life as well as their future creations here.

Too often, we see people who tried something as a hobby and ended up with a new career. If someone is doing something for free and someone else is doing it and getting paid, there is a disparity.

If someone happens to buy a palette created by someone who is here for fun, who are we to say they shouldn't benefit from that sale? That doesn't make sense.

There is no mix up!

1. The Topic - Is google Stealing our patterns?

answer NO

CL licensed out our patterns to Wordpress for Profit! That's where the money factor comes in!

They violated the terms of our agreements!

and We have the right to be upset and demand our percentage here!

GabsGiggles wrote:

Yeah. Also the initial reason of all this was to protect out stuff. And by the Creative Common we have it, now we demand our rights.

Now, to get money from it, I think that's another issue. I feel we're mixing things up and this is getting more unproductive than the other way around.
OrigamiMei wrote:

Exactly.

Gasp365 wrote:

Hm...It raises the question of what most people come to CL for.

I suspect that most who frequent CL are here simply for the recreational value. Personally the things that I make a living out of, I certainly do not create here nor post here.

I don't use CL as my platform where I create things to make a living out of and I would not have CL carry the responsibility of my work ( own not partial). I carry that myself.

This is about protecting our rights! That's what I care about!

*takes a deep breath*
I'm trying to be as tactful as I can be here. I am free to express my opinion just as much as you or anyone else here.
You've made your point...over and over again. Darius has heard the concerns. Yelling louder doesn't get results any quicker.
I'm done arguing.

American Women wrote:

Anybody who doesn't care about The Topic of this discussion shouldn't even be in it!

I opt now, I said my piece, I am going to go try and make a difference!

as more FACTS flutter in I will take them into consideration!

It seems as though Darius wants to help out here. In order to do that, he has to have sufficient information to give the community what the community wants.

Therefore, I guess that the question from this point on is What do we want? Clearly this is individual, but I think that if someone could collect the different answers to this question and present them to him we might be closer to solving the problem.

The money factor is just a violation of the copyright. What proceed is to take them down. Then, an arrangement with CL could be made.

If said thieves who stole your stuff sells them, you wouldn't ask for a share. You would ask for your stuff back and then ask if they want to buy it.

Getting what we can from stuff taken without permission and imposed is not what I want. What I want is to decide what to do with my stuff. Whatever it is, so everybody will be happy.

That's what we need to fight for, the power to decide.
American Women wrote:

There is no mix up!

1. The Topic - Is google Stealing our patterns?

answer NO

CL licensed out our patterns to Wordpress for Profit! That's where the money factor comes in!

They violated the terms of our agreements!

and We have the right to be upset and demand our percentage here!

GabsGiggles wrote:If said thieves who stole your stuff sells them, you wouldn't ask for a share. You would ask for your stuff back and then ask if they want to buy it.


um not exactly what I would do, but enough said!


GabsGiggles wrote:

The money factor is just a violation of the copyright. What proceed is to take them down. Then, an arrangement with CL could be made.

If said thieves who stole your stuff sells them, you wouldn't ask for a share. You would ask for your stuff back and then ask if they want to buy it.

Getting what we can from stuff taken without permission and imposed is not what I want. What I want is to decide what to do with my stuff. Whatever it is, so everybody will be happy.

That's what we need to fight for, the power to decide.
American Women wrote:

There is no mix up!

1. The Topic - Is google Stealing our patterns?

answer NO

CL licensed out our patterns to Wordpress for Profit! That's where the money factor comes in!

They violated the terms of our agreements!

and We have the right to be upset and demand our percentage here!

GabsGiggles wrote:

Getting what we can from stuff taken without permission and imposed is not what I want. What I want is to decide what to do with my stuff. Whatever it is, so everybody will be happy.

This.

In the case of the sites that you're finding the copyrighted material on, Gabs, have you tried a DMCA?

I actually noted that earlier, but I couldn't find anywhere where the individual Colourlover creator was credited. I do agree that credit is the greater issue, not the money.

While browsing, along with finding nearly 30 of my own designs, I found a version of niagirls's Lucky Star Carnival, which is clearly "All Rights Reserved" yet still managed to be uploaded to WordPress.


OrigamiMei wrote:

By the way:
http://en.support.wordpress.com/custom-design/custom-colors/
CL is clearly credited.

I feel like Wiscounsin!

dazzlement wrote:

I actually noted that earlier, but I couldn't find anywhere where the individual Colourlover creator was credited. I do agree that credit is the greater issue, not the money.

While browsing, along with finding nearly 30 of my own designs, I found a version of niagirls's Lucky Star Carnival, which is clearly "All Rights Reserved" yet still managed to be uploaded to WordPress.


OrigamiMei wrote:

By the way:
http://en.support.wordpress.com/custom-design/custom-colors/
CL is clearly credited.