Welcome to icon_theft
I know that most communities like this, at least on LJ, are often locked and have moderated membership. I'd rather keep this community open, at least until there's a good case for making it Friends-Only. If you have concerns or questions that you prefer only the community maintainers to see, please go to the screened post. Otherwise, you're welcome to comment here, PM me, or e-mail me and my contact information is listed in my personal profile.
InsaneJournal is growing quite rapidly and most of us here now have come from other LJ clones such as LJ or GJ. There's been substantial growth in the number of communities too, and likewise, a growth in diversity of opinion and philosophy. With that in mind, there will be some people who disagree with a community of this type and others who will support it, and please keep all discussions as civil and respectful as possible. It's much easier for anyone, no matter what side of the layoutfence you're on, to listen and give thoughtful consideration to an argument in which no yelling, flaming, or name-calling takes place. Yes, I do expect there will be some frustration and possibly exasperation with some of the discussions here, but I would like this place to be able to serve as a helpful resource.
What's considered theft? I would like input on this from others, since my views aren't likely to reflect those of everyone else down to every last detail. My basic definition of it is intentional taking of an icon, layout, or other graphic work, making claims to be the artist or icon maker, and posting or promoting the work as their own whether or not they ask for credit. While some claim that icons made from professional or stock images aren't protected by copyright, they fail to consider that some icon makers use their own original photographs and images, and they are therefore protected by copyright laws. Whether or not they register for protection is another issue, but per PubLaw, copyright exists from the moment the work is created.
So, what about stock and professional images? If a work is registered and the artist/photographer has requested that no derivative art be made from the image, then -- at least in my opinion -- that request should be honored. Yes, there have been images I would've loved to have had as an icon, but because of the artist's request, did not decide to take the image and make icons regardless of their wishes. For stock images that are copyright-free, then the icon maker or graphic artist who modified and transformed the image into something else would then be considered the maker or even the artist of that new artwork.
However, I don't think that that will always apply in every case and depends on each situation. If an image is simply resized and not cropped, I would not consider that new art derived from the original work. But what about cropping, contrast, coloring, shadowing, or sharpening? Because those actions will likely change the way the art is viewed, and in turn, likely perceived, it's a new work of art. I have a lot of thoughts about this, particularly as to how this relates to ancient Greek sculptors and Roman copyists and how art -- and original art -- is defined, but those are for another post for another time. ;D
Crediting an icon maker is another issue. While some icon makers don't require any credit for any icon, others do require credit for all icons. It's considered good practice to always credit an icon maker whether or not they require credit. Some makers request credit because of time spent on making the finished icon, which can involve filters, frames, effects, layers, fonts, and a whole list of aspects that can be used to transform an image into a new artwork. Credit is also helpful for people searching for a particular style, type, or subject and allows them to more easily find the maker and additional icons.
So, what do you consider theft, and what are your thoughts on credit?