it looks like the same style same bright range of colors oranges redish
but background is not the same shape
the leaves are not same shape also leaves details are not the same
there are many differences here
so not certain if it still a problem in terms of copyright !
but would be interesting to ear what the author can tell us on how he did it and if he used any reference images
still looking nice
happy 2.6
the flowers might be slightly different but it is still considered a copyright infringement if you copy the composition and pattern of a work. This is a look and feel violation…I am guessing we getting a 2.62a than sigh
From what I’ve read here, it sounds like the fireflower thing’s been done a zillion times. You can’t infringe something which belongs to noone.
Blend file or it didn’t happen!
I’m just curious about his technique…
What was the license on that background image, if it’s a freely usable resource then it may not quite be full copyright infringement.
That also depends on who initially created the fireflower concept considering there’s a whole bunch of images depicting the same thing.
sorry double post, its raining where I am and my 3G internet connection is acting up
it doesn’t matter if its been done a zillion times, look and feel would be for the one it closely resembles. mario’s fire flower wouldn’t count but the one with the sexy lady would. From that google link you posted the one on deviantart seems to be the original
If I paint a picture of a dragon, than you paint a picture of a dragon that closely matches mine with only minor alterations I could sue even if the were a billion paintings of dragons out there.
this is why Samsung got sued by Apple, I don’t have a clue if apple won their case but others have sued and won. http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-over-for-copying-the-iphone-and-ipad/
I’m not sure if this image being inspired by another is as much a case for a full-on lawsuit due to the fact that the foundation isn’t making money off the concept.
As for your example regarding Apple, I also heard they sued a mom and pop restaurant in Germany because their logo was a (whole) red apple containing a white image of a boy in a hat, people are now speculating if they’ll soon start suing orchards for selling apples (even though in this case it would be the actual fruit)
Apple is suing everyone and everything, it is not a very good example.
However it should be fine as long as the artist got permission from the original artist right?
[citation needed]
that’s for the artist to decide, protecting your copyright is your own responsibility. If he or she decided to act my uneducated opinion is that he or she called have a strong case the splash references his or her work a little too much that. But than again he could be cool with things.
copyright != patent != trademark
Yes, they are are all classified as forms of intellectual property… but all three play by very different rules.
hello Plantperson, of course i was just joking with putting the lady on the splash.
did not realise all of this would become such a fuss. i think perhaps in the future it might be difficult to be an artist since if you make something of your own by your own inspiration and then you get suit because someone else happened to have the same idea as you.
I mean if you have heard of the hundred monkey effect then you can guess that this whole copyright thing on things that even look similar can become a obstacle for human evolution. Like i´dd rather not be all paranoid when i make something, like o my perhaps somebody has done that before and then i get suit. I think it is not bad to get inspiration from somewhere, we do it all the time. from nature, architecture, I mean God will not sue us when we paint nature and sell the painting afterwards. I mean what is it a person can really own. Nothing, we have to leave it behind anyway.
I think the flower belonges to Agent Smith. This one is a typical example of copyright infringement. :no:
Obviously nothing has come of itl http://apfelkind.dtinternet.de/en/
Apple has an obligation to protect their trademark or risk losing it. That’s why their legal reps actively go after anything that even remotely resembles it. Most likely nothing will come of it but they have to be seen to be protecting it.
Anyone know how this fire flower effect was done in Blender ? play with textures or special nodes composition , was there a use of the smoke sim or is it just pictures ?
With google all i could find was photoshoping tutorials for this kind of effect.
maybe one solution to this problem is…
for future releases when a call for splash screens is announced and the images start pouring in…
these are my opinions
yes thats true:
(german article: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/computerkonzern-verklagt-bonner-cafe-wehe-sie-veraeppeln-apples-apfel-1.1173840)
http://apfel-kind.de/die-apfelkind-idee
In detail apple tries to restrict the Trademark “Apflekind” when the owner of the bakery tried to register the tm.
edit (no decision yet), -here is the status:
“think different” before you are i-locked;)
Wow, I had no idea that they didn’t check the Blend files when you submitted a splash screen (If this is the case) 
Sounds pretty stupid to be honest (Not to offend anyone). The blend file should always be checked to verify that it is indeed done in Blender.