|
|
Posted by -hh on 01/17/71 11:33
Welcher Matt Moulton "Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >So, basically, you admit you're nothing but a hack who copies other
> >people's work.
Yes, Matt confessed this when he literally said that he "STOLE" it.
Perhaps when Matt has had some of his works stolen by others, he will
become more senstive to issues (and limitations) of Copyright Law.
Unfortunately, he's probably still at the stage where he would be
trilled to be published by anyone, so financial compensation issues are
being ignored: this ultimately undermines his own works and hurts the
economic potential of the field that he wants to make money in.
> Coincidentally child, it's not really copying...
In layman's terms, it most definitely is. In legal terms, Plagurism is
one description, although it needs a qualifying adjective like "lame"
to describe the quality of this particuar attempt. However, since
Matt claimed to not have the underlying code, and his copy faitjhfully
duplicates the original's I/O interface function and layout ("Look and
Feel"), in legal terms, it would IMO more likely be legally considered
to be a Copyright violation instead.
The life of a young, small designer is often fraught with legal
pitfalls brought about by dumb decisions.
> ... I'm xposting to the Mac addict froup I'll bring up the classic
> example of how Bill Gates reverse engineered Stevie Boi's crappy OS...
That's news? ("Blind Squirrel finds nut! Film at 11")
> It should also be noted that reverse engineering the image is only the
> first step. Once you've gained a mastery of the techniques involved
> you can start altering the base design...
Yes, once one has actually gained mastery. Not Applicable here.
> Further, I have NO idea how the original artist even made their
> version, the techiques I'm developing to recreate it are MY OWN which
> are based on what I see...
The original buttons have a translucent and 3D depth to them which
Matt's copies totally lack. Matt's buttons are markedly
monochromatically opaque and lacking of an appearance of a curved
surface finish to them, which thusly fails to have any significant
appearance of 3D depth which is present in the originals.
Granted, this particular aspect of the original design may not have
been of great important to Matt, but if his original objective was to
fiathfully duplicate the artistic techniques used in the original in
order to learn and then "Master" them, Matt has failed on this part.
FWIW, it doesn't really matter if it was because of a lack of
*observation* skills or of *execution* skills. Overall, I suggest
that Matt try again.
> Like I said, reverse engineering, you can't see the code of a
> program, but if you can see what it does, you can build your
> own program that does the same...but the code won't be the same.
Actually, that's not 'Reverse Engineering' that Matt thinks he's
referring to: he probably means 'White Room' programming.
And in any case, even if the underlying code was properly created in a
White Room, that factor can be irrelevant to a copyright violation on
its "Look and Feel".
-hh
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|