Than I rememberd wrong and it belongs to another icon set.That's not the same wallpaper.
I'll check and let you now later.
I could try! Which walls you had in mind?Can you do that please?
Thanks for the tree!
No, it's there. It's just that the HD one is a different wallpaper.
I don't know. I guess the city one is OK. Maybe the windmills too, but with a different background color than yellow? Not sure, maybe yellow would work out too. The snow one is probably too simple?
Partially you're right, partially wrong.The problem I see is that this certainly falls under "derivative work". If you don't have a license that allows you do it, you just can't use it.
Even if I didn't explicitly write it.I guess the city one is OK. Maybe the windmills too, but with a different background color than yellow?
But that's not what's going on here.
Yep. If someone were to enforce copyrights, they would all be liable for infringment.
"Others are also doing it" is not a valid defense.missTell wrote: ↑3. Dec 2020, 10:31We can see many other virtually the same works as for example this here:
Now my "clumsy assumption" here or there, if it would be that big of a problem and such a "complicated legal matter", this here should/would never be able to stay online - side by side and on the very same platform.
If anybody took the wallpaper matters any serious, this would never be possible:
Art is art. Copyrights are copyrights. There is no legal containment of copyrights on "masterpieces".
You switched to talking about art to talking about software mid-sentence. It's not the same thing.
Unsplash is very clear about their licensing (which makes everything there OK). I haven't looked into pixabay.
Nope, he's not and neither are you.
You're free to use it, if you like it - I'm the one deciding on the licensing model.