Pretty sure that doesn't include the new logo Jason.
(2013-02-20, 12:54 AM)Jason L. Wrote: [ -> ]just gonna leave this here:
http://community.mybb.com/thread-5273.html
(2013-02-20, 12:57 AM)Alex Smith Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure that doesn't include the new logo Jason.
Pretty sure the point was if the old logo was released one would assume the new one should be too.
(2013-02-20, 12:53 AM)Alone warrior Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-02-20, 12:37 AM)ESR360 Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-02-19, 11:59 PM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not OK with literally copying someone else's artwork without permission, no.
Unless the intention is to redistribute as your own work (which wouldn't be the case here, as I said people would most likely only require the logo to link back to MyBB), I don't know how you can make that claim.
Copying artwork is done all the time, what if I drew my favourite Futurama character? Would you have a problem with that? What if I drew the Futurama logo?
It's what you do with it that matters. If I tried making my own TV show with blatant rip offs of Futurama characters then sure, sue me. If I make a piece of fan art and draw the characters and logo, and then tell me you're not OK with it because I didn't get permission from Matt Groening, you're just going to look silly. It's not like the logo is being requested so they can start their own bulletin board software and copy the logo, or re-distribute the MyBB software as their own. If a high quality logo isn't available and you require it why shouldn't you make it yourself, if you have the ability?
^This,could'nt say better.
Actually, my analogies were terrible, and I have no understanding of the context.
Would it be appropriate for a news organization to write about Futurama – the real show – using fanart as accompanying artwork? Or a crude, unauthorized imitation of the actual logo?
(2013-02-20, 02:46 AM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be appropriate for a news organization to write about Futurama – the real show – using fanart as accompanying artwork? Or a crude, unauthorized imitation of the actual logo?
We're not discussing the morality over the use or application of a replicated piece of work, we are discussing the morality of replicating a piece of work, which you stated you were against.
Using fanart or a replicated logo for a news organization may well not be appropriate, but that doesn't mean the creation of the fan art or logo itself is unacceptable or immoral.
I'm out of this debate, anyway, just posted that "
crude, unauthorized imitation of the actual logo" with the view in the mind that it might be useful to some friends until the refined, authorized original is available and MyBB friends can stop fighting with each other.
Clearly, I failed to spread the peace to the environment
I was just thinking if it is "Unauthorized", particularly, then why the crude imitated one is still there and not removed by any staff member? ...
(2013-02-20, 01:00 AM)Jason L. Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-02-20, 12:57 AM)Alex Smith Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure that doesn't include the new logo Jason.
I believe you missed the point. You hard-headed fellas are sitting here arguing on how they should/should not release the image in a PSD or vector format when it's already been done in the past.
I wasn't arguing anything though. I would have posted that but I assumed he wanted the new logo. And, as you can see my previous post was the first in this thread.
(2013-02-20, 03:18 AM)effone Wrote: [ -> ]I'm out of this debate, anyway, just posted that "crude, unauthorized imitation of the actual logo" with the view in the mind that it might be useful to some friends until the refined, authorized original is available and MyBB friends can stop fighting with each other.
Clearly, I failed to spread the peace to the environment
I was just thinking if it is "Unauthorized", particularly, then why the crude imitated one is still there and not removed by any staff member? ...
I appreciated it, I even saved the image on my computer with the intention to use it.