Flyrom99's sig shop

[quote=flyrom99][quote=Thalia Kael] Good luck, i might request once i find a shyvana artwork that i dont alredy have a sig of (its very hard) [/quote] Ya i gave seen alot of reqwuests by u for shyvana skins ;p;[/quote]

[quote=Thalia Kael]=P most of my sigs arent even shyvana[/quote]

[quote=Thalia Kael]also, just wondering, were those first sigs really namelesses artworks? im not trying to be mean i just found it funny =P[/quote]

[quote=Thalia Kael]Nice sigs btw (I had to go for the triple post)[/quote]

[quote=flyrom99][quote=Thalia Kael] Nice sigs btw (I had to go for the triple post) [/quote] yes they were i looked at many tutorials and i was confused so i just said fk this and took those and I finnaly figured out how to make sigs but forgot to seperate the nameless sigs so ya.Thx[/quote]

[quote=flyrom99][quote=Thalia Kael] =P most of my sigs arent even shyvana [/quote] some how I don't believe that[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi][quote=castlemanRC] If you think that this qualifies as fair use within the explicit and implied terms of use allowed by Nameless when she stated that anyone could use these signatures (as signatures), then you are even dumber than the OP. I can't believe you even thought to suggest that this guy passing someone else's work off as his own is in any way acceptable. What the hell is wrong with this community?!? [/quote] ... that's going a little bit far, don't you think? Calling a respected member of the Signature forum "dumb" is not the wisest thing to do. Xiao said that Amanda gave permission for her work to be used or "taken" as they wished. One of the very first comments said, "Can I add text to mine" and her reply was positive. While the original poster should not have claimed that they were his signatures, there's no need to insult someone who came up with an explanation as to why he uploaded the signatures as his own. I realise you're trying to be a protective dad, but it's generally not a nice thing to alienate yourself and those related to you by saying "What the hell is wrong with this community?!?", especially when your daughter (and many of her friends) is an avid participant in said community. The community as a whole is not at fault, it is the individuals who sometimes overstep boundaries. Everyone is new to something once.[/quote]

[quote=Thalia Kael][quote=flyrom99] [quote=Thalia Kael] =P most of my sigs arent even shyvana [/quote] some how I don't believe that [/quote] Half of them are shyvana but the other half are of a character named Alexstrasza from WoW (no i dont play WoW, i just found her when searching things) and she looks almost exactly the same and theres limited shyvana artwork atm so i used Alextrasza artowrk[/quote]

[quote=Thalia Kael][quote=jhoijhoi] [quote=castlemanRC] If you think that this qualifies as fair use within the explicit and implied terms of use allowed by Nameless when she stated that anyone could use these signatures (as signatures), then you are even dumber than the OP. I can't believe you even thought to suggest that this guy passing someone else's work off as his own is in any way acceptable. What the hell is wrong with this community?!? [/quote] ... that's going a little bit far, don't you think? Calling a respected member of the Signature forum "dumb" is not the wisest thing to do. Xiao said that Amanda gave permission for her work to be used or "taken" as they wished. One of the very first comments said, "Can I add text to mine" and her reply was positive. While the original poster should not have claimed that they were his signatures, there's no need to insult someone who came up with an explanation as to why he uploaded the signatures as his own. I realise you're trying to be a protective dad, but it's generally not a nice thing to alienate yourself and those related to you by saying "What the hell is wrong with this community?!?", especially when your daughter (and many of her friends) is an avid participant in said community. The community as a whole is not at fault, it is the individuals who sometimes overstep boundaries. Everyone is new to something once. [/quote] I agree with you jhoi but i think you overreacted a teensy bit. I maay be mistaken tho[/quote]

[quote=Xiaowiriamu][quote=castlemanRC] [quote=Xiaowiriamu] Well, you did say "anyone can use" so basically you gave him the rights. :( [/quote] That is absolutely NOT true here. Any "rights" Nameless gave the general Mobafire community to use these signatures was clearly for the sole purpose of using them as personal signatures on a user's account, not to be stolen, mildly edited, and then passed off as another artist's work. This gentleman is trying to say that Nameless's artwork is HIS artwork. That is blatant intellectual property theft. If he had simply used them as signatures for his account, that would be perfectly fine, but he isn't. He is trying to pass these off as HIS work. If you think that this qualifies as fair use within the explicit and implied terms of use allowed by Nameless when she stated that anyone could use these signatures (as signatures), then you are even dumber than the OP. I can't believe you even thought to suggest that this guy passing someone else's work off as his own is in any way acceptable. What the hell is wrong with this community?!? [/quote] I never read into this matter, I just read the thread title of Nameless and saw "anyone can use" and then flyrom99 using those 'images' for himself to post as work, in a sense it isn't acceptable. First of all, most images we all use are not ours, the renders, some c4d's....it isn't ours, but websites like google, offer these images based on a free service. So based on your findings, its wrong for all of us to post "our work" when really it isn't "our work" since we took, in a sense, a 'anyone can use' image. The problem here... is the lack of reference to Nameless. The contribution made for flyrom99's work is more than flyrom's himself. So there should at least be some notification of that. I think in this case you've gone too far on the application of the literal sense in the term "rights", probably i was absurd in the applying of the word (mainly because i just overlooked the thread title, i didn't read the disclaimer that the work was only to be used solely for personal use). But since you want to get technical and legal, then you should of applied the golden rule of statutory interpretation instead of the literal rule, because the term rights in my previous post shows ambiguity. And to clear up another thing, [quote]I can't believe you even thought to suggest that this guy passing someone else's work off as his own is in any way acceptable. What the hell is wrong with this community?!?[/quote] I never stated it was acceptable. What is wrong with this community? Calm down.[/quote]