5 ms·

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 the

by manmal 14y ago

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)

networked 14y ago
Which is why we need a consistent way to embed license data into media. Not as "enforceable" DRM but as metadata that is preserved by image editing software and can be checked automatically when you are about to send your creation to production. EXIF theoretically allows for this but it is hardly ever used.
- bruceboughton 14y ago
  So EXIF allows this but is hardly ever used. Sounds like this is a people problem, not a technical problem.
  - networked 14y ago
    It's both (which is to say, it's about HCI). People would be more eager to use whatever license embedding mechanism we agreed upon if it was as easy as right click -> "License as..." -> "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". That is not the case right now.
    - bruceboughton 14y ago
      That solves the license input but doesn't make anyone more likely to check the license at go-live time.
      - networked 14y ago
        > That solves the license input but doesn't make anyone more likely to check the license at go-live time. My point is exactly that you shouldn't have to. If all your license information sat in the files themselves checking licensing would be accomplished by adding a few standard lines to your deployment script. If your website used Creative Commons-licensed media your CMS would even be able to generate attribution data to be shown at the bottom of the pages that use that media on its own resulting in fully automated compliance.
        micampe 14y ago
        it's easy to do it yourself if you really care: make your script reject assets missing a license, forcing you to verify it and adding it to the file.
sspiff 14y ago
I usually use a CC search engine filter (even Google has this!) to make sure I pick legal artwork from the start, just in case I forget.
- emn13 14y ago
  An open source search might have found this image - LGPL isn't CC, but it's close enough to be practical. IANAL, but if it's LGPLed, they can probably just include it without issue - they just need to note that the _image_ is open source, not necessarily the rest of their stuff. The only real problem here is the lack of proper licensing (i.e. the default its-all-ours! license is too strict). And totally unnecessary too, probably. I seriously doubt this kind of software is in any way an edge over their competitors - it's probably just big corp habit.
DanBC 14y ago
What search terms do you use to get this particular icon returned? [settings icon]["settings icon"][free settings icon] etc don't return it.
- nwh 14y ago
  Could have happened months or years ago. Google Images seems to shuffle quite a lot.
- bluehex 14y ago
  Searching [settings] with the Size setting (found by clicking "Search Tools") set to "Icon" shows it on the 16th row for me, along with lots of other hammer & wrench icons.
- angry-hacker 14y ago
  http://www.iconfinder.com/search/?q=settings 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_tools_wrench_icon http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8844/128/kit_settings_... with author, licence and all the info.
  - iconfinder 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.

by manmal 14y ago

networked 14y ago

Which is why we need a consistent way to embed license data into media. Not as "enforceable" DRM but as metadata that is preserved by image editing software and can be checked automatically when you are about to send your creation to production. EXIF theoretically allows for this but it is hardly ever used.

bruceboughton 14y ago
So EXIF allows this but is hardly ever used. Sounds like this is a people problem, not a technical problem.
- networked 14y ago
  It's both (which is to say, it's about HCI). People would be more eager to use whatever license embedding mechanism we agreed upon if it was as easy as right click -> "License as..." -> "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". That is not the case right now.
  - bruceboughton 14y ago
    That solves the license input but doesn't make anyone more likely to check the license at go-live time.
    - networked 14y ago
      > That solves the license input but doesn't make anyone more likely to check the license at go-live time. My point is exactly that you shouldn't have to. If all your license information sat in the files themselves checking licensing would be accomplished by adding a few standard lines to your deployment script. If your website used Creative Commons-licensed media your CMS would even be able to generate attribution data to be shown at the bottom of the pages that use that media on its own resulting in fully automated compliance.
      - micampe 14y ago
        it's easy to do it yourself if you really care: make your script reject assets missing a license, forcing you to verify it and adding it to the file.

sspiff 14y ago

I usually use a CC search engine filter (even Google has this!) to make sure I pick legal artwork from the start, just in case I forget.

emn13 14y ago
An open source search might have found this image - LGPL isn't CC, but it's close enough to be practical. IANAL, but if it's LGPLed, they can probably just include it without issue - they just need to note that the _image_ is open source, not necessarily the rest of their stuff. The only real problem here is the lack of proper licensing (i.e. the default its-all-ours! license is too strict). And totally unnecessary too, probably. I seriously doubt this kind of software is in any way an edge over their competitors - it's probably just big corp habit.

DanBC 14y ago

What search terms do you use to get this particular icon returned? [settings icon]["settings icon"][free settings icon] etc don't return it.

nwh 14y ago
Could have happened months or years ago. Google Images seems to shuffle quite a lot.
bluehex 14y ago
Searching [settings] with the Size setting (found by clicking "Search Tools") set to "Icon" shows it on the 16th row for me, along with lots of other hammer & wrench icons.
angry-hacker 14y ago
http://www.iconfinder.com/search/?q=settings 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_tools_wrench_icon http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8844/128/kit_settings_... with author, licence and all the info.
- iconfinder 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.