It's still in moderation.  Things in moderation might show in  your personal gallery until approved or rejected. 

rejection....... am still trying to get used to it   lol

Best word of advice, which I'm not the originator of, but have found to be extremely helpful myself...Skin for your personal satisfaction alone.  If others like it, they can download it, you're generously putting it "out there" for others if they are interested, but the main goal of skinning should be for your own personal gratification.

Aesthetics are all very subjective.  My mom has a painting of some lilacs I made when I was 10 hanging in her main foyer.  I think it stinks, but she thinks it's awesome, and she paid an outrageous amount of money to have it professionally framed.  I think Picasso stinks, but people pay outrageous amounts of money for his work that to me, looks like a pencil drawing my youngest son drew on our bathroom wall when he was 18 months, sitting on the pot, bored because I was trying to potty train him.

I view the uploading of my work the same way I view my offerings at Freecycle -- I derived some use out of this object, but now I'm done...if anybody would like it, they're free to take it, but otherwise it's just going to be trashed.

ZubaZ looks at the date of the orginal post.

 

 

Apparently the word "timely" as used in this thread is as subjective as aesthetics. 

k10w3   thanx for that

Of course there is no time limit . . but I've been here forever and seeing some of these older "dead" threads come back to life sometimes strikes me as funny.

Some of them though, have a good amount of acrimony, and I'd hate to see healed wounds reopened. 

In all things . . moderation is key.  No need to comment on old posts if you are just reading for fun.  Posts are living dialogs . . and they naturally die out. . .  usually. 

Crikey heman, that sounded profound! [that wasn't an insult by the way ]

Can't be 'profound' if it includes 'acknoledgle' .....

 

Threads about 'issues' specific to one individual will die off of their own accord...and their resurrection months later is almost always irrelevant to the original issue [as it related to the OP].  There is a fair to good chance the originator won't even see/notice/care about responses months or years later....

 

agreed! and so i'm going to hijack this thread

i have been frequently visiting this page and using stardock product for maybe a few years now, but never uploaded until yesterday.

as i got more into customizing given WB skins lately (for private purpose only, yesterday i wanted to create a new wallpaper. something not so claptrappy, more elegant that fits to my dark WB skin. i started witha dark grey background and added a brushed metal effect to have it not so sterile and some light for a little bit of the third dimension. then i got myself the shape of the landmass of the earth which should become the foreground element. again i added textures and effects and spend way to much time playing around with layer-fx, the colors and so on until i got it to a point where i was happy with the result:

-> http://a.yfrog.com/img690/8407/vintageearth2560x1600.jpg

probably not the most eyecatchiest wallpaper around, but i thought that it might be interessting to see how others like or dislike it, i created 3 other resolutions for 16:9, 5:4 and 4:3 ratios, packed them to a zip and uploaded this file to the wallpaper section. after the upload the file was already visible in my profile, but this morning i got 2 mails saying that the upload did not match the guidelines and has been rejected. one mail labeled "island dog" as name of the sender, the other one labeled "wincustomize support".

on one hand, i considered that this might have been a technical problem, so i link the picture that i used for the preview and the zip file with all 4 jpg files in the text above. i'm not a newbie in using forums and their functionalities and the non-automated email also indicates, that there is most likely not a technical problem, but if there is something wrong with the files or whatever, some advice would be welcome.

more likely seems that the image has been categorized as art thievery or something similar. to sum it up: i arranged every pixel of the picture. i created most textures myself, or used free textures. the only exception is the shape (and only the shape!) of the landmass of the planet earth. of course i didn't fly 200miles straight upwards and took some fotos myself, but i take every bet the rightsholder of the original source of that shape neither did. also before using this picture, i reduced it to this so i think that it is questionable if one can proof that the origin of the shape actually is a certain picture. for example i could have created the shape by using some random school atlas (like in old days with sandwich paper, hrhr) ... actually i do not care to admit that the origin is a certain, probably to some of the users known source, but the question is, if such a shape, clearly "stolen" from the earth can be claimed as intellectual property. however you name the force that is the actual creator of this shape, i guaratee it is not interessted in copyrights! probably more a GNU fan... at least i haven't heard of any artist who got hit by a lightning for potraying the wonders of nature in his work... anyway, i'm not familiar with copyright laws or where wincustomize draws the line for art thievery. and i'm neither expecting a mod taking time for a discussion about this topic, nor do i rage that the pic has not been published... posting just out of curiousity because the first time i uploaded something that actually got tested for copyright related stuff, it instandly failed^^. it never came to my mind, that this would be a problem. anyway i would be interessted in a more detailed explaination, maybe from someone more expirienced with this topic who actually took the time to read all of this text that got far longer than i expected when starting to write it

 

cheers

 

 

Necrothread...this is 2 years old.

They are exempt and I am at Master now.

mtsnoop....

There are means to search the Internet for the pre-existence of an image in order to determine whether a particular person is the originator of that image.

Your yfrog link returns 133 hits which indicates there are at least 133 OTHER instances of that image on the net.

It is therefore extremely likely the original image is not your own, hence its rejection.....

The originator ALSO did not fly up 200 miles and take a 'foto' [sic] as that image will NOT be visible.  The original instance was probably derived from an atlas 'map', but either way the copyright will not be yours to distribute.

just arguing for fun, with little juristical knowledge to backup my statements

i think that i would not harm the copyright of a picture. this a shape given by nature and it can be obtained by various sources. can you copyright the shape of the moon? i don't think so. can you copyright a picture of the moon? well probably, but there is a difference since the photo has much more individual character. have a look at the b/w pic i posted. does this have something so unique and artifical added to the natural coastlines that justifies moral or legal protection? every school boy or girl can recreate it with lttle effort.

 

besides: if you could and would fly 200miles high, you would have to orbit the planet or you wouldn't get there. and because of the low altitude compared to the geostationary orbits, you would be way faster than the normal rotation of the earth which makes it rather likely that you will round the panet, able to take a series of infrared pictures that could be used to create such a picture. but i agree that the the atlas thesis seems more reasonable  either way, i didn't intend to distribute the picture whatever source it may come, but still say that you simply cannot claim copyrights on the coastline shapes of the planet. never the less, after thinking a bit about this while typing i do understand that the operators of this site have to be very careful when it comes even close to copyright abuse