Open Source
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- Anders0
There is the possibility to
work with open sources.
You could make a design meant especially for being used as open source, share the .psd file or whatever. I remember Prate doing it some time ago.
Is there something to gain by doing this?There's nothing new in using other people's graphics or pictures in your own works. Appropriation art did it to an almost sickening level.
But there's a difference, when it's design made to solve a unique problem. If you change that design, can you fit the design to solve an entirely different problem - and what will the design mean without the problem it was meant to solve?
- sparker0
open-source doesn't negate copyright. any code written by a programmer is copyright to that programmer.
if i develop a custom application that stores images in a database for later use...then that finished product is copyright to me.
side note:
copyright pertains to completed works, not the materials used to create them. as a painter, the painting you created is copyright to you, the brushes you used are not.i can write an open-source application using a (seamingly) proprietary framework (.net, asp, c, pascal, etc). the language isn't mine, but the product is.
the gpl protects a creators personal copyright while giving an open-source license to his/her product.
the app is still mine, but i 'allow' (through the gpl) anyone to obtain it, modify it, and redistribute it if they so choose.
- chl0
I should point out that all of the software that powers this web site is completely open source, either under the GPL or a different, even less restrictive license. It's been running flawlessley for quite a while now except for the times I've been an idiot and broken something. :)
- unfittoprint0
if it's not open source I don't want to know about it... yeah!
- mitsu0
Consider the following:
http://www33.brinkster.com/trans…
Artist A creates digital image (Fig.1) and places it on website.
Artist B saves image, and post the image (Fig.2) immediatley to his website.
Artist C saves image, changes the hue of image as well as bgcolor (Fig.3) and posts it to his website.
Artist D saves image, crops it and posts the image (Fig.4) to his website.
Artist E saves image, and changes the brightness by 1 unit. (Fig.5)
Artist B took the image and made no modifications to it and used it in his site
Artist C did the same but changed the hue and bgcolor to produce what you see in Fig.3. As a result of this change, while the image portrays what others would perceive to be an exact copy of the origianl, the image itself is no longer a digital duplicate of the original as each bit that makes up the image has been changed completley.
Artist D also made a modification to the origianl image by simply cropping it. At this point, in terms of binary comparisons, there are only few notable matches.
Artist E makes a clever change to the original image by changing the brighness by 1 unit. To the naked eye, the image is an exact duplicate, but to a program, these files are entirely different. What might be noticable is the pattern of the bits, However, as seen in Fig.4, this can be slightly detered by shifting bits, or removing them entirely.
Of course, for the purposes of illustrations, the exapmles used are for more simple than their real-life counterparts. But each of these scenarios contains subtle differences and begs the question: Are any of these forms of copying legal? What constitutues the illegal usage of an image. How do you copyright an image? The same question holds true, in my opinion for mp3's, and software. What is it about an image that allows it to retain it's own unique identity, one that cannot be copied?
- 4cY0
interesting sparker.
but what about sampling?
see photoshop tennis, collage etc.etc.
like there is copyrighted software/code (microsoft?) there will still be copyrighted images, I was just wondering for a system in which each image-file can be specified as copyrighted or oen-source in some way.
i know it happens but it is not as widespread.. any image (and video/film-footage) you Google up should have a tiny label attached. But that's me dreaming.
well... who knows?
- sparker0
because graphic artists usually don't provide the original material with their completed works.
if you use a photo for something, but the finished work doesn't resemble that photo anymore, do you give the photo to the client to re-use and alter as they see fit?
graphic designers/artists don't take kindly to people 're-working' their vision to suite their own needs.
i could care less if someone takes an application i write and changes something to make it work for their needs. would you let a client change the color scheme or the typography of a design?
i doubt it.
that is like comparing apples to potatos at that point.
:)
- unknown0
open src images
- Mimio0
What greater purpose would art have it were open-source? How does it being free-use help it communicate better?
- 4cY0
well, we are in the age of visual sampling, giving new meaning to graphics and photographs, recontextualizing them, if i word it well.
graphics do not seem to be so much in the open-source spotlight as software/code.
- mitsu0
not understanding the correlatoin between code and images as it relates to open source...
- 4cY0
good point, anders!
can someone explain me the difference in creating imagery and coding a piece of work, perhaps art?
I often feel coders are made inferior to visual designers.
- sparker0
i'm on linux. fuck sco. :)
that whole deal makes me laugh.
- Nirvous0
SCO : 4 words : Show me the code.
To date SCO is suing everyone and anyone with Linux, but to date has not shown one scrap, one byte, one piece of code they claim is illegal. Suck on it SCO.
If your not on Linux this makes no sense to you, but then again, a one button mouse is silly to me. :) Long live the fighters.
- Anders0
Why not graphics?
- timajick0
open sores
- mitsu0
i'm not grazy about the gpl... though i can see where it does serve a purpose.
all of my code that i open source will be free with no obligations whatsoever... meaning you don't have to give me any credit, even if you make a profit.
what really blows me away is people that try to copyright their javascript code... i just can't help but laugh...
there's an option to view source for a reason...
- sparker0
you can develop in an open-source model and still get paid. i do.
open-source software can cost money. open-source and the gpl require you to include source with your distro...it doesn't say it has to be free.
you are giving someone the right to tinker with your code...and they do so at their own risk. the only restriction is they make available the modifications to the code they made, so someone else can find them useful.
- mitsu0
exactly, rasko!
- unknown0
I cant help but feel sorry for the old ladies stuck at home on their own, all they want is some Daddies or HP on their chips or their shepherds pie but they cant because the lid is so tight that they cant open the sauce.
its a bloody shame.