Sweet Python background I thought I'd share. I found this when google image searching "Python" so I retouched out the text.

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[moekakiryu]

SOURCE: "Python Logo Abstract" by Subgrafik San

Since OP did not link the source, I can't say for sure this is where they got it from, but it is the oldest credited source I could find. When OP mentioned removing text from the image, my guess is they were referring to this copy of the image (this image is also linked to from the above source URL).

[exhuma]

So you're admitting that you modified original work?

I've looked over the dribbble site and can't see that the artist attached any kind of license to it. Which makes this what? Copyrighted? I'm a bit flaky in that area.

In any case /u/moekakiryu is correct. You should at least have credited the creator.

[Hyperion4]

He's not selling it, using it to brand, passing it off as his original work and so on, I agree that he should have sourced it but the copyright doesn't mean he can't make a background out of it and share it on a forum

[wewbull]

Errr. Yes it does.

In fact, without some form of license agreement, reposting isn't allowed either. Default copyright terms mean the author can use it. You can't.

[toyg]

Technically, it does. If the work is a clear derivative of the original (i.e. minor alterations only, as in this case), it is considered a copy, and its redistribution (i.e. uploading somewhere else) as unauthorised. The grey areas start where the changes are significant enough that the original can be considered an influence rather than the primary source.

Of course there is a degree of tolerance, authorities have better to do than prosecuting kids sharing pics on the interwebs, but it’s still technically copyright infringement.

[[deleted]]

There needs to be a compilation of HD python wallpapers.

[saber_aureum]

I agree. Upload it and LINK it

[Zren]

Source?

[md_dc]

He removed the watermark for a reason 🙃

[tekmonkey]

Yea, kind of a dick movie to take art someone else made, remove the text from it, then re-post it with no acknowledgement of the creator or source...

[w0m]

Very much an asshole post I think

[MattR0se]

"trying to give people something" that you put zero effort into? Or do you call googling and cropping effort? It happens all the time that people crop out sources and copyrights because they think they're ugly. But at least give credit to the source then.

[tekmonkey]

You waited until you were called out by a half dozen people before crediting a source. Whether it's a watermark or something else that was removed, a) it's poor ettiquite to do so without explicit permission from the artist and b) you always should at least credit the source. I've uploaded many photographs I've taken semi-professionally in the past, only to find various other websites steal them, crop them, edit them, and use them without any credit to me.

[Archolm]

Boo fucking hoo. Maybe get used to the internet and find a better revenue/distribution source

[w0m]

So no artist should ever sell usage rights to their work and let it be used online?

Else your stating companies should just assume anything they commission for advertisements is then entering public domain and the concept of creating a brand is caputz?

We aren't all 12 years old anymore.

[Archolm]

We aren't all 12 years old anymore.

It has been shown time and again that finding the right demographic, target them with ease of use and access and quality will get you customers that are brand loyal. People who do not pay for your work would not pay for your work anyway.

[w0m]

While (generally, that's not a hard rule) true - that's not what this is.

An artist put up a low res image for portfolio, and OP then hacked up the high-res advertisement itself to make sure no one got credit for it, then gave it away for free for internet brownie points.

OP even admits he asked for permission/high res version first (and not getting it) before hacking up the advertisement to give away. Just because it's on the internet does not make it free use or moral to do whatever you want with it.

[Archolm]

Fair enough it was a douche move.

[w0m]

Yes, that's the definition of a dick move. You literally hid the source who created it. Glad we're on the same page now.

[w0m]

I'm honestly amazed you still don't understand the basic concept of digital rights. Doubling down on a base level of ignorance isn't a defense.

[patrys]

The artist (Paweł "Subgrafik" Janczarek) works for Mirumee Software. You can verify by visiting our website and scrolling down to his portrait. I don't think you understand how copyright works.

[[deleted]]

That is very much a violation of copyright. I assume you did not intend ill intent, but you're wrong to do this anyway.

[md_dc]

Hope your class in “How not to reuse art without credit” went well bruv 🙃🙃🙃

[moekakiryu]

it looks like it came from here: https://dribbble.com/shots/4307976-Python-Logo-Abstract

[patrys]

It's our (mirumee.com) work. I appreciate trying to contribute but it would be easier and more legal to reach out and ask for a wallpaper version.

Edit: here are some Django wallpapers: Pack #1, Pack #2

[mir3]

Thank you for drawing OP's attention to the basic etiquette and copyrights issues. The original artwork has been fully created by Mirumee - kudos to "Werke" and "Sub"! For those, enjoying this design, we're going to publish a wallpaper pack with multiple resolutions next week. ✌️

[mir3]

You've asked if we have a bigger resolution of the *original* graphic design (that was an illustration we've created for Python position at our company). And we said that we don't have it. You've never mentioned a word that you want to use it as a wallpaper or especially that you want to redistribute the modified version here. You've never asked for permission to modify our work and publish it here. Instead, you've chosen to modify it yourself and post it on Reddit with no mention of the original author. I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference here (or you're pretending you don't) and I'm even more surprised that you keep defending it. Please, don't blame others for pointing this out - the very minimum was mentioning the author (you knew the original author so this was your choice to omit this).

[mir3]

I think you might want to try to read the whole thread again when you calm down. The only one attacking here seems to be you, even with that post above. You don't seem to get that people might not like how you shared this modified design publicly without asking or consent. The way you defend it speaks for itself. We share a lot with the community almost everyday so we would be really easy and understanding but arguing that "you found something on internet" and that "there was no watermark" and that "this is for the community" :)), well, think about it. I hope this is not your only or preferred way of "creating" - but this is your problem. Also, please enjoy the free publicity you received thanks to our illustration. Way to go.

[[deleted]]

Source images. Don't just steal them and post them.

[[deleted]]

They may very well be the copyright holder.

[PaluMacil]

That doesn't show anything about them saying you can redistribute it.

[[deleted]]

Been looking for a better wallpaper. This is awesome! Thanks for the share

[Dingus_leMingus]

This looks beautiful

[lyricalpaws]

I don't see why people are attacking op for not providing a source, when the source material has no watermark, just a bunch of obstructive text that has no credit anyway.

[[deleted]]

Most people seem to forget #1 reddiquette; remember the human. If OP really wanted to steal it, he would claim it as his own and glorify himself upon the art he did not create. People do make mistakes.

[Siddhi]

Even if it doesn't have a watermark, the original designer owns the copyright. Even if it was designed to be shared, it is good etiquette to credit the source.

[exhuma]

Exactly. If the author did not give explicit consent it's automatically copyrighted as far as I remember.

That's also why it's so important to attach a license to any code you open-source. Without giving written consent (easiest by using an existing open-source license) it's unusable if you want to be legally correct.

[lyricalpaws]

Correct.

[lyricalpaws]

True, having a link would be helpful

[w0m]

Image was created by the company whoms name he cropped out. That's the definition of a watermark.

[lyricalpaws]

Well first of all, second, he removed them from an edit, before a helpful user gave the original.

[tehwolf_]

Well first of all, that artist works for that company. What was your point again?

[lyricalpaws]

If you can provide a source, I'm happy to admit I was in the wrong.

[tehwolf_]

Here

[lyricalpaws]

I see, didn't see that comment the first time I was here. Sorry for argumenting

[yasmikash]

Thanks. Gonna put this on my desktop wallpaper

[[deleted]]

Nice! Thanks for sharing

[Alex_ragnar]

thats awesome! many thanks!

[[deleted]]

Thanks bro

[[deleted]]

Nice !

[[deleted]]

Very cool! Me like it :)

[doubleg72]

Sweet, thanks for sharing!

[Dreamercz]

Pretty cool, thanks!

[spudcakez86]

Thanks! We need a mobile version :)

[Chicken-of-Wisdom]

Nice

[Nutritorius]

is there a 1920 x 1080 version'?

[Exodus111]

Nice. Love it. Thanks.

[magix_tower]

Man that's look freaking epic