Modifying a signature code, can or should this be considered as plagiarism?.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

So I was thinking, the signature code are like open source code that anyone can modify since there's no restriction to who can use them (correct me if I'm wrong here). Personally when trying to create a signature ad for myself to wear in advertising my currency exchange business or other personal business, I chosen some signature code I found their ads to be attractive or perfect, do some adjustment and used the code on my profile to advertise my business. I'm not a coder nor have any indepth knowledge of creating the bbcodes. On no occasion also have I used any of the ad code in decieving users with clickbait.

So my question goes as this, if such event occurs when two projects have similar or exact signature ad format meaning the later obviously copied that of the first advertisers can this be deem punishable especially when permissions wasn't taken from the code owner.

On several occupations, I have seen project using similar signature code most especially as most knew code designers get their inspiration from previous designs.

[1714821834]

1714821834

[1714821834]

1714821834

[1714821834]

1714821834

[1714821834]

1714821834

[1714821834]

1714821834

[1714821834]

1714821834

[logfiles]

It's something tricky and I could depend on how the person who designed the original signature code feels. This kind of topic has been coming up once in a while in the reputations boards. Maybe you can look through the threads to see how members reacted
1. Stealing signature design
2. Plagiarism of My Signature Design - The accused got tagged and profile is banned. Not sure if it was due to the copied signature
3. Copycat Signatures: Chipmixer and Wasabi
4. The signature plagiarism is happening again
5. PLUGIAT ON CREATING SIGNATURES
6. Stolen Signature Design

From my opinion, I think it's unethical especially if you are going to advertise a service. Asking for permission would reduce the possibility of someone being bitter seeing his/her signature design being used someone. I think some people around here are cool if you asked for permission.

[BitMaxz]

I think it will depend on who design the signature code.

Why not ask them(Designer) first if you can use their signature code and modify it. This is the best you can do if you want to use their BBcodes.

And I think if the designer is already been offline for many years you can also use the old design and modify the code to design it with your own.

Or for safety, start reading and learn how to create your own signature design there are lots of tutorials out there but you can check this link below.

- [LEARN] BBCode Lessons & Tutorials [+tutorial videos!]

[carlfebz2]

From my opinion, I think it's unethical especially if you are going to advertise a service. Asking for permission would reduce the possibility of someone being bitter seeing his/her signature design being used someone. I think some people around here are cool if you asked for permission.

Should really be on this way yet its neither they would allow or not but at least you do ask for some permission as long you do modify a little bit and not looking exactly on which you had copied.

Its plagriasm in the sense you're using those codes but when there are alterations or changes then i dont see much of an issue.It does really give out bad impression for those people who do see the

signature is just the same into the original ones this is why its important to have permission so that at least if there are bitterness or issues arise then you can always show that you have been permitted.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So I was thinking, the signature code are like open source code that anyone can modify since there's no restriction to who can use them (correct me if I'm wrong here).

I think that's pretty much the case.  I don't know who the people are who design signature designs for campaigns and such, but I've never seen anybody state that the code is theirs or whatever.  I'm not a coder, so I'm not really sure about how to put that into words.

The question is really whether writing that's published (whether it's in a book, news article, or an online discussion forum like bitcointalk) should be treated the same way as code that shows up on the internet in one form or another.  I don't have the answer to that, and I don't know if there are any standards as far as copying code goes.  My opinion is that it's not ethical to use code that someone else created without their permission, but with respect to the rules of bitcointalk I don't know if doing so would be a violation of the plagiarism rule.

Why not ask them(Designer) first if you can use their signature code and modify it. This is the best you can do if you want to use their BBcodes.

Sure, that's what you ought to do, but I'd say most of the time you don't necessarily know who wrote the code or how to contact them. 

And then even if you get their permission, how is anyone else supposed to know that the permission was granted?  It's not like you can include a statement to that effect in a signature code.

[NotATether]

For what it's worth, I can compare this scenario with using media player skins. You download skins from the internet, usually not knowing who wrote it, and even in those cases, there is no license or terms of use provided with them, just the little file you can add to your player. It is generally accepted among the public that such items can be freely modified and redistributed without violating the author's wishes, and if they don't want people to go about modifying it they can bundle a Creative Commons Attribution - No Derivatives license with the skin.

Same idea for signature codes, because nobody really cared in the past if someone modified and adapted their signature for something else, it's accepted behavior. So if someone really didn't want you to change their signature, they would write that, or tell you directly. If you're really paranoid to enforce that then license it under one of the Creative Commons licenses. But neither of these can be classified as plagiarism because the derived work does not belong to them, only the original work (the latter case, if the license is breached, is a trust violation).

Stealing the signature code and then claiming it's yours is a different story that's definitely plagiarism and also a trust violation.

So if a designer just posts a signature code out in the open, chances are they don't care whether you modify it or not. If they did they'd contact you after you use a modified signature.

The question is really whether writing that's published (whether it's in a book, news article, or an online discussion forum like bitcointalk) should be treated the same way as code that shows up on the internet in one form or another.  I don't have the answer to that, and I don't know if there are any standards as far as copying code goes.  My opinion is that it's not ethical to use code that someone else created without their permission, but with respect to the rules of bitcointalk I don't know if doing so would be a violation of the plagiarism rule.

All writings are implicitly copyright of the entity that wrote them, by law. If the copyright holder has legal powers to prosecute you then they're most likely going to do that if you don't include a copyright attribution with © year author etc. But if they don't, like bitcointalk users, then there's no reason to add an attribution to the stuff you copy, a citation (the person/place you got it from, without a ©) is good enough. But some people want you to contact them for permission if you're copying large parts of it, and even in those cases, it's either verbal or written permission usually they don't ask you to add a copyright attribution to the stuff you copied.

So, the answer is without a citation for a signature code, you can't accuse someone who modified it, or copied it without stating who designed it (especially if the sig is already on the designer's portfolio like Jayce's) of plagiarism, but copying it and claiming it's your own is plagiarism, but moderators don't seem to go after those offenses yet.

2. Plagiarism of My Signature Design - The accused got tagged and profile is banned. Not sure if it was due to the copied signature

That guy ignored the designer when he tried to contact him about his copy, so a reasonable person can discern that he didn't give permission to anyone to modify his signature.

[Darker45]

So I was thinking, the signature code are like open source code that anyone can modify since there's no restriction to who can use them (correct me if I'm wrong here).

I think that's pretty much the case.  I don't know who the people are who design signature designs for campaigns and such, but I've never seen anybody state that the code is theirs or whatever.  I'm not a coder, so I'm not really sure about how to put that into words.

I beg to disagree with the idea that signature codes are there for anybody who wishes to use them as they please, with some modifications of course. Codes represent design. By the time the code is worn, it comes out a different thing, a signature. It must have taken a good deal of effort and time to create such design and convert it into a bbcode. As a matter of fact, it was created with a certain price tag. And so it is unfair to just choose among existing signature codes, do some little tweaking here and there, and then you have your signature.

Well, how do you feel if this happens:

░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄ ░░▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄ ░███▀░░░░░░░░░░▀█▀█ ███░░░▄██████▄▄░░░██ ░░░░░█████████░░░░██▌ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░░████████████████ ███▄░░▀██████▀░░░███ █▀█▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄███ ░░▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀ ░░░░░▀▀██████▀▀

.Darker45.{ ESCROW REINVENTED FOR YOUR SATISFACTION#.Darker45.

░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄ ░░▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄ ░███▀░░░░░░░░░░▀█▀█ ███░░░▄██████▄▄░░░██ ░░░░░█████████░░░░██▌ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░░████████████████ ███▄░░▀██████▀░░░███ █▀█▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄███ ░░▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀ ░░░░░▀▀██████▀▀

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

...

Nice point buddy, out of smerits if not I would had sent you some.I love how this is going. With your example I think it all depends on what the owner of the code what. If you observe closely, on countless occasion especially on the signature thread of chipmixer the signature code are usually modified by some members to either make a point in an argument or welcome new members, if I'm not mistaking too there's this user (Gyrsur) by username (just browse that out) promoting a separate project with the same design, Darkstar seems to haven't done anything about if which probably means he's cool with it.

I understand that some designs are so unique that it represents the project, like in the case of chipmixer that one doesn't need to see what's written before he associate the designs to chipmixer. When such design are user mostly it's just for clickbait. In a situation when such code are modified to an extend its doesn't have much similarities to that of the original, who that be ok?.

[pooya87]

i think it is mostly a grey area because on one hand a signature could be considered a "design" and because of that it could be intellectual property but also there is some confusion which rises because none of the signatures used by signature campaigns have ever used any kind of license with their code. so in a way they are publishing their code on public domain without any license. that could be interpreted as "you are free to use without attributing the authors" to some.
i say if anybody doesn't want their signature codes to be reused by others they should reserve their right by adding a copyright, it doesn't have to be all rights reserved (C) but the creative commons license with more flexibility that is more suitable for internet culture.

[mu_enrico]

So you have two things: the visual and the code. Both have to be treated separately because each has its own license and stuff.  By the way, copyright violation is not the same as plagiarism.

About this modified signature, the creator has the copyright (by nature) about the visual. Any changes/usage if it's not categorized as fair use, will violate the copyright. BUT this is the internet where "stealing" visual/image is pretty common. It depends on whether the creator wants to make a case or not.

About the code, not sure if the creator didn't use someone else's code to produce the signature. No proper licensing here, so it's a weaker case.

[dimonstration]

Plagiarism by definition is owning someone else's work. If modification is already done to the original work then this not plagiarism anymore because it is already a new signature. Signature code here is open source that's why it was publicly posted on the Signature campaign and also the format and design is very limited on this area that's why most of the signature design here has a similarity.


Competition on signature code is now increasing that's why many newbie designer are inspiring there design to the professional designer here which is not bad for startup business. Actually this is a common practice in the real world market.

░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄ ░░▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄ ░███▀░░░░░░░░░░▀█▀█ ███░░░▄██████▄▄░░░██ ░░░░░█████████░░░░██▌ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░░████████████████ ███▄░░▀██████▀░░░███ █▀█▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄███ ░░▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀ ░░░░░▀▀██████▀▀

.Darker45.{ ESCROW REINVENTED FOR YOUR SATISFACTION#.Darker45.

░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄ ░░▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄ ░███▀░░░░░░░░░░▀█▀█ ███░░░▄██████▄▄░░░██ ░░░░░█████████░░░░██▌ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░█████████████████ ░░░░░████████████████ ███▄░░▀██████▀░░░███ █▀█▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄███ ░░▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀ ░░░░░▀▀██████▀▀

My concern is no company will have same design as chipmixer unless someone blatantly copy all there designs and name it "Cheap mixer" and so on to use the "C" on the design and there color combination and shading. If this is the case then it's too obvious that it was a violation. But based on what I see on the market. They are changing color combination, logo and some minor improvements to the signature to make it new which I don't see any problem at all. If designer really want to prevent this, they should require there client to private the signature code and send it only to accepted participants.

But when you post it publicly. You don't have any control about it. Same case as when you post your ID in the Web. You can't imposed that people should not use it because it was yours.

[Slow death]

I chosen some signature code I found their ads to be attractive or perfect, do some adjustment and used the code on my profile to advertise my business.

this is plagiarism, it would not be considered plagiarism unless you asked for permission to modify the subscription. You only modified a few things, but people looking at the original subscription will be able to notice the similarities and this causes discomfort for those who created the subscription and those who paid for the subscription. I believe it is better for you to hire someone to create a signature for you or you most create a signature without using the code of another signature and modify some parts.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

this is plagiarism, it would not be considered plagiarism unless you asked for permission to modify the subscription.

I wasn't referring to a campaign in my statement. For every Campaign I launch, there's a requirement from me for them to provide me with the signature code. In a situation when they (project owner) doesn't have an idea on how to do that then I put them through via linking them with a signature designer that give then something of their choosen.

I meant my personal business or when I intend passing a message across via my signature space (but I get your point). From the contributions so far I think there's a mix reaction and not mixed view on the question.

[NotATether]

To be clear, when I said:

So if a designer just posts a signature code out in the open, chances are they don't care whether you modify it or not. If they did they'd contact you after you use a modified signature.

I was referring to the case of another designer using someone else's signature as a template for them to make a different design and layout on, not the layman's case of lazily replacing words in a signature, like the example sig Darker45 showed. Obviously the owner the sig is advertising don't like when someone uses their design for their own business, because it might dilute their reputation.

Same reason why Fortune 500 companies regularly sue businesses who infringe on their trademarks.

[jayce]

I'm fine if someone modifies my signature code, as long as; 1. He asks my permission first, and/or (2) it's for his own service. If I catch some projects using or modifying one of my signature designs, I'll try to find out who the designer. If it's designed by themselves, then I usually let them do that if our communication going well. If they purchased the design from other designer, I'll take serious action for it. I caught few of new designers doing this and since they were cooperative and promised to not repeat the action, I decided to not bring the issue any further.

[Lucius]

No matter how legal something is or isn't, I don't think it's polite to take someone's work and use it with some minor modifications - not to mention that it can be confusing for other users. I know there have been a few users who have used modified CM signatures to protest the service as such - but what if another mixer showed up and started using similar signatures for their campaign?

Personally, I would never think of using anything (signature, avatar, logo) of another user without first asking for their opinion on it.

[Bttzed03]

Signature kind of represents a brand and I would be very careful if I'm going to use that to promote my own company. Even if I got the permission of the original designer and the first company, it would still leave a bad taste to other people. "No originality" is definitely one of the issue that will thrown there.


If this is related to your post in archival and the campaign you are about to manage, you should probably asked them to hire a different designer.

Unnamed.exchange

 ✔ FAST EXCHANGE     ✔ OVER 200 COINS       ✔ $$$ TipBox       ✔ FREE COINS EVERY 24 HRS!  
  Unnamed.Exchange   ▮▮▮▮▮   Join the Cool Kids !!!

Yobit.Net
 ✔ FAST EXCHANGE     ✔ OVER 350 COINS       ✔ MULTICOIN DICE      ✔ FREE COINS EVERY 24 HRS!  
  YoBit.net   ▮▮▮▮▮   Play DICE!   Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!      

[RapTarX]

Until user hasn't taken permission from the creator, it's plagiarism. Signature designs are output of a lot of hard work and they are intellectual property of creator. Therefore, a signature design plagiarism should be considered as plagiarism if an user don't have permission from the original creator.

[The Cryptovator]

Technically its plagiarism as you know very well. It's punishable if the original creator of signature codes create accusation against you. Otherwise most likely no one will bother to report such as case. But I am not sure if it's punishable by the forum admins/moderators, I think very less possibility.

I have remembered one of my clients had created a signature by copy-paste Bitsler codes. I had denied them to use it and asked the Bitsler manager about it. And yahoo62278 referred me to the creator of the signature to get permission from him. Rather than avoid coming problems I had created a new design. So it's pretty clear you should ask the creator if you want to modify. If you are unable to contact with creator then at least ask the manager or owner, so you will get an answer either you want to use personally or commercially. It's better to stay safe from unnecessary drama.

[Darker45]

...

In a situation when such code are modified to an extend its doesn't have much similarities to that of the original, who that be ok?.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but there are actually a lot of gray areas in this issue, probably even legally. For example, you could take someone else's code so that you won't have to start from complete trash, and then you would change the color, font, size, and so on and so forth. That would certainly come out as a new design, an original one, and nobody would know that you actually merely took an existing bbcode for it.

That would be the easier and safer option. Definitely not this kind of modification:

Unnamed.exchange

 ✔ FAST EXCHANGE     ✔ OVER 200 COINS       ✔ $$$ TipBox       ✔ FREE COINS EVERY 24 HRS!  
  Unnamed.Exchange   ▮▮▮▮▮   Join the Cool Kids !!!

Yobit.Net
 ✔ FAST EXCHANGE     ✔ OVER 350 COINS       ✔ MULTICOIN DICE      ✔ FREE COINS EVERY 24 HRS!  
  YoBit.net   ▮▮▮▮▮   Play DICE!   Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!      

Well, we have what is called 'derivative work' and it could actually be copyrighted, but still not without the consent of the work from which the new work is derived.

But when you post it publicly. You don't have any control about it. Same case as when you post your ID in the Web. You can't imposed that people should not use it because it was yours.

Having no control over it and having the legal ownership and full rights over it are two different things. When you post an intellectual property publicly, it doesn't amount to offering it for everyone's use in whatever way they please.

You may post publicly something you own but once you notice that somebody else is using it as though it is his/her own, you could always run after him/her legally.