Page MenuHomePhabricator

License of the Grumpy Cat?
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Is the image (the grumpy cat) really PD/CC0? If not, it needs to be attributed in the near vicinity of the image.

rHQ5y.jpg (768×1 px, 385 KB)

Related Objects

Event Timeline

Josve05a assigned this task to Petrb.
Josve05a raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Josve05a updated the task description. (Show Details)
Josve05a added a project: Huggle.
Josve05a added a subscriber: Josve05a.

It doesn't need to be PD/CC0 because huggle is not a part of wikipedia, it's a program located on your computer.

It doesn't need to be PD/CC0 because huggle is not a part of wikipedia

I didn't know laws only apply on Wikipedia.

There is no law that you can't use picture unless it's PD/CC0, it's a wikipedia-local rule.

revi changed the task status from Resolved to Invalid.Aug 31 2015, 1:18 PM
revi added a subscriber: revi.

If this is not a huggle bug I think this is more correct status.

Josve05a reopened this task as Open.EditedAug 31 2015, 3:38 PM

(It is a problem with the tool Huggle. Might not be a "bug" but a problem never the less)
@Petrb No, of course not, but if you license your tool (a freely licensed software) you should not have copyrighted meterial in it. If the image is someone elses, you still need to obey that persons license/copyright, and I can''t see any attribution to that file/image in the license agreement text when installing, nor in the "About..."-page, or near the image. Is the image freely licensed?

(It is a problem with the tool Huggle. Might not be a "bug" but a problem never the less)
@Petrb No, of course not, but if you license your tool (a freely licensed software) you should not have copyrighted meterial in it. If the image is someone elses, you still need to obey that persons license/copyright, and I can''t see any attribution to that file/image in the license agreement text when installing, nor in the "About..."-page, or near the image. Is the image freely licensed?

Why not? linux is freely licensed software and it contains copyrighted material as well.

/me will try to explain licenses and attribution...
Everything is copyrighted (which iisn't PD). A person can license something under a free license, such as CC or GNU. These are in 9.9999 / 10 times listed in some "licenses" or "Attibution" page or something. If the perosn has made the material (image in this case) they do not need to make any special attribution, cince they may chose to license that under the same license as the main program, but in case it isn't the persosn own content, it needs attibution, both for the lciense agreement for that image and the perosns name/what s/he wants to be attributed under.

You could try to claim fair use, however I rather doubt it would hold up in court.

If that was true, 99% of all internet websites would violate that law. Once you are done with them, you will have my attention ;P

If that was true, 99% of all internet websites would violate that law. Once you are done with them, you will have my attention ;P

http://i.imgur.com/EDSanlx.jpg

Well, if necessary someone can crop Grumpy Cat's face out of the photo on the enwp article and make a similar graphic.

This picture was found on tumblr, per this site:

http://readwrite.com/2012/02/28/everything_pinterest_and_tumblr_users_need_to_know

"users who submit content to Pinterest or Tumblr are giving the sites a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable license to use, copy and distribute their content."

Thus this image is free to reuse, not so cool license as commons require, but enough for huggle.

Let me write this in "No-caps", but please imagine me sceaming this: But they do not "have the right to grant such a license." since thy did not make the Grumpy Cate image. (That quote was on the same paragraph of that article!)

If they make something, they are allowed to license it under "a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable license" however, they (the user who shared it) do not!

Also, might be a violation of the GNU-licene the program is distributed under...etc.....etc....

Let me write this in "No-caps", but please imagine me sceaming this: But they do not "have the right to grant such a license." since thy did not make the Grumpy Cate image. (That quote was on the same paragraph of that article!)

If they make something, they are allowed to license it under "a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable license" however, they (the user who shared it) do not!

Also, might be a violation of the GNU-licene the program is distributed under...etc.....etc....

You think this why? Owner of grumpy cat herself states on her website that they only care about copyright infrigment when it comes to commerical merchandize, which huggle is not. She herself posted the picture of grumpy cat, including this one on many social media sites that have same rules as tumblr. By doing so she basically gave the pictures to public domain.

This has nothing to do with GNU, it's the other way. GNU protects your software from being used inside of commercial software which wouldn't distribute its own source code freely, or from getting patented by someone else who could try to steal it somehow. It doesn't prevent you from using commercial or copyrighted stuff inside of your program. As I already said, even linux kernel comes with proprietary components, hence linux-libre was established that doesn't contain these.

By using an image that you don't have permission for, you are violating copyright law. GNU is not really the problem here.

"users who submit content to Pinterest or Tumblr are giving the sites a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable license to use, copy and distribute their content."

Unless you happen to be Pinterest or Tumblr in disguise, that doesn't affect you. Worldwide means Tumblr gets permission to use it anywhere in the world, not that any person in the world gets permission to use it.

The picture was already replaced, can we now close this pointless discussion?

You guys don't seem to get a point. The owner of grumpy cat doesn't give a fuck, if her pictures weren't so massively shared across internet, she would never became so rich. The creator of picture I used in past would be probably more than happy if he knew his creation got so much attention to be used in some software.

Just you do care about this absolutely ridiculous and stupid so called "copyright infringement" which most likely isn't infringement at all, wasting my time. Now go and do something useful. Thanks