
Sony Pirates KDE Artwork - k-i-m
http://blogs.kde.org/2013/02/21/sony-pirates-kde-artwork
======
jacquesm
[http://web.archive.org/web/20020808140127im_/http://www.true...](http://web.archive.org/web/20020808140127im_/http://www.truetech.com/images/homepage_header.gif)

On the left hand side of that image you see a little segment that conists of a
hand, an eye and an ear. Those stand for interaction, video and audio.
TrueTech hired Jonathan Kraij, a talented young designer to make that logo and
it was featured in many places, magazines such as wave and many others besides
in the late 90's.

Not three weeks after one prominent bout of exposure the logo appeared in an
advertising campaign by Sony the Netherlands.

We talked it over with them and they traced it to a guy working for one of the
agencies that designed the campaign. He'd most likely been subconsciously
influenced by exposure from a magazine. Sony was pretty good about it,
promised they wouldn't use the logo any further and paid us a fair bit of
money to offset the use.

All in all it could have been a lot worse and I think that before you start
using words like 'pirates' you have to dig a little deeper to be sure that it
was intentional and that it wasn't some external party that caused this.

Sony is a damaged brand, they've done lots of terribly stupid stuff but at a
minimum they should be given the benefit of the doubt until there is hard
proof they did this on purpose. We all know Sony fucked up in the past but
that is no reason to automatically assume they did so again without any proof.

~~~
belorn
Interesting. We should give the benefit of the doubt in cases regarding
commercial use from copyright infringement. If its a 9 year old who is
downloading a song, then she must be aware of copyright law and thus can't be
given the same benefit of the doubt. That girl is a pirate.

Is it just me who thinks this logic is wrong?

~~~
jacquesm
Of course she should be given the benefit of the doubt too.

See, if you as an outsider want to make sure that all parties are held to the
same standard then you should be willing to apply that standard to your worst
enemy as well.

Note that I am not in any way defending Sony or their conduct, I just want the
same standard that I'd like to apply to downloading music to apply to this
instance of possible copyright violation.

Sony is a terrible company and they deserve to go down because of the way
they've harassed private individuals, they've lobbied for ridiculous
legislation and have done an enormous amount of wrong. And in spite of all
that you should still be even handed in dealing with them.

~~~
belorn
I agree that we should hold all parties to the same standard no matter who the
party is, but commercial usage should add additional expectations from the
defending party. Commercial use is commonly perceived as "worse" than if it's
done for private/non-profit use.

But my initial comment was mostly to acknowledge that we do not give the
benefit of doubt to private persons, but we do to commercial entities. The law
should be equal, but had this been a discussion about someone who downloaded
songs, there wouldn’t have been a single comment questioning the validity of
the accusation.

~~~
unreal37
I work in advertising for multi-national clients the size of Sony, and believe
me, acquiring the rights to images is a hugely important step in any marketing
campaign. Most likely Sony hired an outside firm to create them a logo, and
that firm copied it instead. I have no doubt Sony will apologize and pay a
standard fee plus some for its use. If you think a huge corporation like Sony,
with billions of dollars of sales a year, is purposely looking to rip off a
single $1000 logo and hoping nobody would notice, you don't understand big
business.

~~~
belorn
After they were told of their mistake, did they stop with the infringement or
did they continue selling their devices?

Its one thing to do a mistake, but its an other to continue because its
cheaper to ignore copyright law than to do a complete stop in the production
and selling of a product. At that point they are doing willingly infringing
copyright law.

------
damian2000
I've got another less exciting reason how it ended up there... someone at Sony
or one of their contractors found it on here:

[http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-
icons...](http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-
icons.org/Categories-preferences-system-icon.html)

It says there "commercial usage allowed". They probably didn't even know it
was from KDE.

~~~
more_original
Yes, commercial use is allowed, but the LGPL requires attribution. The site
you give does link prominently to the LGPL license.

~~~
jacquesm
> Yes, commercial use is allowed, but the LGPL requires attribution.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Licen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License)

<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html>

Where does it say that, I can't find the word attribution on there?

Do you maybe mean the creative commons license?

~~~
pornel
I think the OP may have been referring to 4a:

    
    
        a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.

------
kenkam
Such a shame Sony pirated their artwork.

Also, such a shame the article introduces Sony as "the company who created
Audio CDs which installed a rootkit on Windows computer to try to stop people
copying music", as if Sony needed introduction, especially for people that
read the KDE blog.

Maybe it would have been more effective to point them out in a matter-of-fact
way, tell them to stop or to comply with the licence, and move on. It would
certainly come across as more mature, more about problem solving, and less
about name bashing.

I appreciate though it is hard to keep a level headed tone if it were to
happen to me..., but there's no harm in trying!

~~~
abrahamsen
I thought at first it was a positive introduction: "the company who created
Audio CDs".

~~~
onemorepassword
Also known as the last honest and not deliberately crippled or degraded
product to come out of the music industry.

~~~
shrikant
Only till they realised CD rippers exist, and CD-RWs became popular and
affordable. Then came the DRM and rootkits.

------
josephlord
As a former Sony employee although in the consumer TV's business rather than
either Vaio or Sony Music I'm pretty confident it is a mistake and that it is
likely to be fixed. [The Sony TV's came with a paper license in the box for
all the various open source licenses of the software included in the TV and I
believe there is a website with all the relevant source.]

If it is used in a website is it really a breach of the terms of the LGPL? I
thought that the whole point behind the Affero GPL was that the normal
GPL/LGPL did not prevent you using software server side to present a service
to users without the requirement to distribute the source. Given that I'm not
sure what the status would be of an image under LGPL (dual license with
Creative Commons Sharealike, attribution as mentioned by another commenter)
being served as part of the website software. Now maybe it is reasonable to
say that Javascript and images are actually distributed to every browser
accessing the page and that therefore source code and license must be made
available but it isn't completely clear to me.

Whatever the technical legal case it was bad form and most likely a mistake
for Sony to use this icon in this way.

Edit to add: Sony is a massive sprawling multi-limbed business with actions
from different parts sometimes not just contradictory but conflicting at
times. It is all done under the Sony name so it is fair that bad in addition
to good actions are reflected in the reputation but the reality is that there
is very little shared between the Music arm putting out rootkits (about eight
years ago - maybe it is time to move on) and the electronics side.

~~~
Argorak
The problem is not that it is used.

Its used without attribution and correct licensing information, especially as
the website states that all material is copyrighted(!).

~~~
josephlord
Sony should not have claimed copyright and should not have used it without
attribution.

I'm however not sure of the legal status of components of LGPL software that
are downloaded components of a hosted service. If they are not "distributed"
the license brings no requirements does it?

~~~
Argorak
If the client downloads it, it is distributed.

LGPL is interesting when used in the server software itself. Then, it doesn't
have to be distributed, as the server software itself is never provided to the
client.

------
moondowner
Here's the license for the icon used from the KDE Oxygen icon theme:

<http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4>

"Oxygen icon theme is dual licensed. You may copy it under the Creative Common
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License or the GNU Library General Public License."

------
jason_slack
The KDE Developer that wrote this needs to take a deep breath...they asked:
"Should KDE e.V. and Nuno's Oxygen friends start a new business model by
sueing them for everything they're worth?"

Really? Sue them for all they are worth?

Go ahead and try, but you need money to sue and no Judge is going to award you
"All they are worth" over an icon.

You haven't lost anything with Sony using this icon. You have gained because
now there is an subconscious association between Sony and KDE.

Well, for those that even recognise that it is KDE artwork to begin with.

~~~
warfangle
If you look at it under current copyright law, every time Sony has distributed
this icon without the GPL (e.g., the page on which it resides has been viewed)
can be considered an infringement of the original artist's copyright. Sony
would be liable for between $750 and $150,000 per instance. Say this page has
been viewed 100,000 times.

That's 100,000 violations of the original copyright. Statutory damages awarded
could be upward of $75,000,000. We balk at these figures when applied to eight
year olds and grandmothers, because these figures were oriented towards
companies and individuals that violate copyright in order to profit from it.

RIAA can sue individuals for violating their copyright by distributing music
files; artists should be able to sue Sony right back for violating their
copyright by distributing their icon without following the stipulations set
out by the original artist. That's how copyright law is supposed to work,
anyways.

And no, they haven't "lost" anything. But Sony still broke the law.

~~~
jason_slack
They did and they should make it right.

But the blog author spouting off at the mouth instead of proposing this in a
more profession manner doesn't help people side with KDE at all.

------
polshaw
This leads me to a legal question about GPL stuff.. Say the guys at KDE threw
their full legal might behind this- what would happen to Sony?

Obviously they would be required to change it (or include the GPL licence),
but is that all? What kind of 'damages' could be claimed in such a
situation?.. ie what is the risk to Sony in doing this. NB i'm using this
(somewhat trivial) example to talk about GPL violation more broadly.

~~~
freehunter
Well, it is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if the copyright
says you can do whatever you want as long as you mention our license, if you
don't follow the terms you're still infringing on their copyright.

~~~
manaskarekar
I think he's asking about stuff like 'What kind of damages can KDE claim due
to "lost sales", since it's not software that is usually sold.'

~~~
belorn
Lost sales is normally calculated as some hypothetical price tag in the case
if Sony had bought a license from KDE. Its what music labels do when
calculating damages in p2p cases, rather than looking at the unit cost.

------
manmal
That's a serious case of Google-Image-Searchitis. My theory: somebody googled
for "settings icon", swore to himself to get proper artwork later, forgot, and
there we have it. (Yes, I'm guilty of that too, but I usually don't forget)

~~~
DanBC
What search terms do you use to get this particular icon returned?

[settings icon]["settings icon"][free settings icon] etc don't return it.

~~~
angry-hacker
<http://www.iconfinder.com/search/?q=settings>

Iconfinder is one the most popular ones around... so probably whoever is
"responsible" for it used that kind of search engine.

There it is:
[http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8844/128/kit_settings_...](http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8844/128/kit_settings_tools_wrench_icon)
with author, licence and all the info.

~~~
iconfinder
Hey, Iconfinder here :-)

We care a lot about stating the license clearly since it's essential to our
business. Also if there is anything copyright infringing on our site we'll
remove it immediately. As far as I can tell, this icon is created by the
Oxygen team and the license information is correctly presented on our site.

~~~
penguat
Yep - I don't see any blame for you guys in this thread :-)

If you know you were used for this, you might be in a position where you could
choose to help out. There may well not be any clear evidence you were used in
this instance though.

------
anonymous
I think unfortunately the best case of action would be for KDE to sue Sony
pre-emptively. Otherwise, some lawyer on Sony's side would notice KDE using
"their" icon and sue KDE.

~~~
meaty
I think KDE's source control system would prove otherwise...

~~~
espadrine
I doubt Sony's lawyers care about that.

KDE would care about trial costs, though. Do they have a budget for that?

~~~
freehunter
I would expect for a name like KDE they wouldn't have to worry about it. If
the FSF doesn't pick up the bill, if the EFF doesn't pick up the bill, if
someone else doesn't pick up the bill they'd have a donation drive. There's no
way KDE would have to worry about paying lawyer fees if Sony sues them for
their own original artwork.

------
rossy
I wonder if this happens because of open source being mistaken for public
domain. I've definitely had lecturers who confuse the two.

~~~
rmc
What's funny is that is' happening both ways. Lots of people are confusing
"copyright infringement" with "claiming another work as your own". There was
an article here about mundane/average computer users trying to use copyrighted
music tracks on YouTube, and it being banned. Users were confused how it was
being taken down for 'copyright infringement' when the person wasn't claiming
it was their music.

~~~
Amadou
Attribution is a pretty standard component of the moral rights associated with
copyright in many non-US countries. In the US, moral rights (versus economic
rights) are hardly protected at all. For the most part they are limited to
riding the coat-tails of economic rights.

Yet, as your example shows, the right of attribution is the kind of right that
many people naturally perceive as a "fair" part of copyright, much more fair
than the right to control distribution.

------
NamTaf
This isn't the first time Sony's ripped artwork off.

Back in early 2006 I left a webpage comment (haha, remember them?) with the
admins at Digital Blasphemy (that CGI desktop wallpaper site everyone loved
back in the day) because I was playing with a mate's Sony W800i mobile phone
and noticed that they'd ripped off an image called 'Fluroescence' [1] to
create an animated mobile background image - there's a whole series of that
image in different colours with different transparencies and they'd just
grabbed them all and made an anmiated GIF that faded between them. In doing
so, they'd cropped the DigitalBlasphemy watermark in making it a portrait
aspect ratio and as far as I could tell not credited DB anywhere.

I ended up getting a 'thanks I'll look in to it' reply, but don't know if
anything ever came of it. I figured at the time it may have been the mistake
of a lazy artwork designer but part of management of such a project surely
must be to ensure that all of the content is legit. It's certainly interesting
to see that this company has done this again. As previously, it may well have
been the work of a lone employee but it is still the company's responbility to
stop that behaviour.

I hope KDE can get a favourable resolution to this problem.

[1]: <http://digitalblasphemy.com/preview.shtml?i=fluorescence>

~~~
mpyne
The Digital Blasphemy guy later worked with some developers to make some PS3
"Live Wallpapers" based on his artwork... perhaps that was in reaction to what
you pointed out?

------
speeder
I like Sony, but some stuff they did in the past was highly questionable and
may come back to haunt them, specially when some random artist at them use
someone else artwork.

The best thing Sony can do is fix this, say sorry, and punish the guy that did
this.

But.I have a hunch that they won't do that.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _and punish the guy that did this_ //

Couldn't they just add LGPL3 to the website and acknowledge the work of those
who helped [albeit in this case in a small way] create their website unpaid?

~~~
Zealot
It's also in their UEFI settings. I've seen it with my own eyes.

------
rolfvandekrol
Come on kids, the rootkits on audio CDs are already history for quite a while.
Yes, they shouldn't copy stuff from others, but why link it to past mistakes?

~~~
edent
Come on, he murdered that guy _once_ and it was years ago!

Why should we forget when a company acts so maliciously? Why shouldn't we
point out that they have a pattern of misbehaviour?

------
viseztrance
Honest question. Did the author even attempted to contact Sony or anyone in
the KDE organization to resolve this issue?

~~~
aviraldg
Honest question. Does Sony do the same when someone accidentally uses their
licensed material?

~~~
nkozyra
In lieu of blogging about it? Yeah, yeah they do.

~~~
emn13
Yeah, they stick to less serious steps such as lawsuits and rootkits instead
of something this egregious.

------
niggler
I could be misremembering, but wasn't there a case last year where GPL code
was found in Sony playstation software?

------
baby
But here we're clever and we know that behind Sony, this is the mistake of a
stupid web developer. Right?

EDIT: [http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-
icons...](http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-
icons.org/Categories-preferences-system-icon.html)

This thread is a nice flame war.

~~~
michaelbuddy
No doubt. What the hell is wrong with half the people in this thread. Pent up
hostility against an invisible monster.

------
csense
While we're all hating on Sony, let's remember how they _removed_ the ability
to install Linux on the Playstation 3 [1] [2].

They're a company that does malicious things to users. Please, boycott Sony.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3#OtherOS_support>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS>

EDIT: Citation added, because I was downvoted.

------
Zealot
So what now?

Are we going to see Sony GPL'ing their UEFI implementation?

~~~
dan1234
The image is under LGPL3, all they really need to do is acknowledge this and
provide copies of the image and derivatives.

------
rplnt
I don't think "pirated" is the right word.

~~~
Fargren
Well, "pirated" is probably not the right word for anything less than armed
robbery of a boat. But lately it's been used as a synonym of "copyright
infringement", so maybe it applies.

~~~
nollidge
In the context of software, "piracy" has come to mean downloading _and
distributing_ copyrighted material. And I think it's fine to use it for that,
even though it doesn't happen on the high seas (usually?).

But this is more like plagiarism, although I'd be fine with calling it
stealing or theft, which have a pretty broad meaning colloquially.

~~~
mpyne
Are you saying that the image is not, in fact, used in the UEFI firmware Sony
is distributing?

~~~
nollidge
That's a good point, actually. I should have read closer.

------
whalesalad
While this blows ... it's a bummer that companies keep getting blamed when
things like this happen. Sure, at some point an employee is a reflection of a
company but at the end of the day a person did this. It's easy to point the
finger at a big company and use this as fud against them. But really... the
correct title should be "Someone who works for Sony pirated KDE artwork."

~~~
damoncali
I get what you're saying- this is almost certainly a case where one employee
was either lazy or ignorant and just found a nice icon. Not a big deal. But,
it was in the service of a company and the corporation is responsible for it.
In a sane world, what that means is that someone from KDE would point it out
to them, and Sony would say "Ooops. That was a mistake. We'll change it.
Sorry.". Who knows what happens in the real world.

~~~
uxp
> it was in the service of a company and the corporation is responsible for
> it.

This a million times over. When I write code, or do a quick Google Image
Search for a stupid icon to clean up a UI while I'm at work, I'm doing so in
service of the company I work for. If my actions result in me and my company
infringing upon someone else's copyrights, it is ultimately my company that is
responsible for those actions. My company may retaliate against me (I'm pretty
sure there's a "don't fuck up" clause in my work agreement), but my company
cannot wash their hands and allow another company or individual to sue me
directly for the violation anymore so than I can remove all the code I've
written in their products on my last day of employment the same way I pack up
the nic-nacs on my desk.

------
rikacomet
wait! shhhh! don't let the guys at TPB know of this, they are gonna laugh
until they die from this :P

------
stevewilhelm
I think the real headline should be "Proof that at least one person at Sony
has used KDE"

~~~
mbel
Not really, apart from the other software utilizing this icon, this
"inspiration" might have come form a quick search [0] :(.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=preferences+icon&tbm=isc...](https://www.google.com/search?q=preferences+icon&tbm=isch)
(this particular icon is one of the topmost results in my surely personalized
search)

------
grecy
Unfortunately, I honestly think the best course of action is to sue Sony for
every penny possible.

The case needs to get as much press and possible, and people need to see how
completely ridiculous the whole thing is. More and more cases like this need
to tie up the court system, wasting everyone's time and money.

This is the only way we'll get copyright reform.

~~~
hkmurakami
A part of me would like to see such a torching strategy. Yet I feel a strong
resistance from another part of myself -- a part of me that believes that OSS
would do better by taking the high road, by continuing to be one of the few
areas/markets/communities, commercial or otherwise, that lives the life it
preaches for the world.

If OSS devolves to "one of the pack", then I feel like we'd lose something
fundamental and core to the only viable players for the moral high ground
strategy. Don't we already have enough companies showing the world how ugly
litigation can be?

~~~
anonymous
Oh no, I don't want them to win. At most, SONY will just add a "we use icons
from KDE, licensed under LGPL" as a tiny text somewhere. The goal isn't to win
a case against SONY and score massive profits from damages. The goal is to not
be on the wrong end of a suit.

------
berlinbrown
In post Aaron world, come on. Seriously?

