360396 - Stolen Metal Lion- Brushed iCe theme on Addons.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Policy, defect)

Description

[Frank Lion]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

This : https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3823/
	
	...is a stolen version of my Metal Lion - Brushed iCe theme. It is using graphics of mine i.e a lot of them! that are expressly excluded by my ReadMeIMPORTANT.txt contained within the jar of all my themes. This guy has never once contacted me or sought my permission to use any of my graphics, THAT ARE MADE BY ME.

The first I knew of this, is when someone pointed that Addons page to me, just now. I doubt that elvo has any knowledge of this either and know for a fact that he would not allow his graphics to be used in this way.

There is a 404 for the website of this thief.

Will someone please remove this theme from Addons, straight away. Thanks Frank.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Reassigning to shaver, who is the decider.

Comment 2

[Frank Lion]

How is this stuff just sailing straight past the reviewers? This is the third or fourth time that this has happened to legitimate theme authors, in recent months. 

The following is the wording from me READ ME IMPORTANT.txt that is in my theme jars, right next to the install.rdf and preview.png i.e. in the first layer, where you cannot miss it :

*************************

Hi, if you are reading this because you want to use stuff solely for your own private use, then just skip the heavy stuff below, haha. That's just to make it clear how people stand regarding public use. Hope you enjoy using the Firefox Metal Lion themes.

Frank :) 



COPYRIGHT :

All graphics, artwork, icons and other image related material used in the Metal Lion Theme Range (including any past, present or future versions) are the copyrighted property of Frank Lion, with the two exceptions shown below*. The usage of this aforementioned material is strictly forbidden for any and all, commercial and Non-commercial public purposes whatsoever. The only exception will be unless written permission is given in advance for such a purpose by the author, Frank Lion.

*Original Option window icons (now reworked) by Tlacuilo.
*Original Toolbar buttons in Metal Lion - iCe range (now reworked) by Lynchknot.   http://lynchknot.com

The Metal Lion theme code base is open source (licensing information is contained in the boilerplate text at the head of each file) and was built layer upon layer by original authors and later, by various contributors. If it was not for this excellent open source method of licensing, it is unlikely many Firefox themes would exist. Therefore, you are completely free to use this code base as a model for your own theme. However, this theme may not be modified and re-released under the name "Metal Lion" at any time in the future, unless written permission to do so has been given in advance by the author, Frank Lion. If such permission is given, then the name of the original author (Frank Lion) of Metal Lion must be credited and included, in any such theme or software application.

Frank Lion, 2006.  <[e-mail]>

Details on MPL/LPGL/GPL licensing can be found at:  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL
 

Comment 3

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

I should totally get "The Decider" on my business cards!

Here's what I propose we do, in this cases and others like it:

1) Get an AMO reviewer to look quickly at the themes in question and validate the claim.

2) Have an AMO admin or deputy contact the author of the allegedly infringing theme asking them to remove the theme or resolve the issue with the complaining author (Frank) within 7 days.

3) If it's not resolved within those 7 days, mark the theme "disabled" and change the description to indicate that it was removed due to a copyright violation.

Does this sound workable?  flig? morgamic?

Comment 4

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

That sounds fine. We might specify that any contact between the 2 parties take place in bugzilla comments so that later on we have record of anything that may have been decided.

Frank: No one knows all of the existing add-ons on the site and reviewers are certainly not expected to. I never use themes and definitely would not know that this theme was in violation had I been the one to review it.

Comment 5

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

It's likely "sailing past the reviewers" because there's nothing in the Custom Brushed theme to indicate that there's anything wrong.  I don't think reviewers are ever going to be completely chasing down possible infringement in themes, because the space is so large and difficult to assess.

We should and will add something to the developer upload that requires them to agree that they have rights to everything that they upload, but that won't take away the need for authors to report violations, and for us to act on them.  I think the proposed process will be decent for reacting to reports of violations.

Comment 6

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #3)

> 2) Have an AMO admin or deputy contact the author of the allegedly infringing
> theme asking them to remove the theme or resolve the issue with the complaining
> author (Frank) within 7 days.
> 
> 3) If it's not resolved within those 7 days, mark the theme "disabled" and
> change the description to indicate that it was removed due to a copyright
> violation.
In totally clear cut cases like this, the stolen theme should be removed from Addons with immediate effect and then, if required, the situation can be assessed later.

In my view, Addons has no right to ignore the copyright concerns of an extension or theme author once they have made their concerns known directly to AMO.

Your above suggestions are valid if the concerned theme author has not made contact with AMO.

When the Mostly Crystal theme by CatThief was stolen, it the stolen version was removed within one hour.

7 days is totally unacceptable in a case like this.

Comment 7

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> 
> > 2) Have an AMO admin or deputy contact the author of the allegedly infringing
> > theme asking them to remove the theme or resolve the issue with the complaining
> > author (Frank) within 7 days.
> > 
> > 3) If it's not resolved within those 7 days, mark the theme "disabled" and
> > change the description to indicate that it was removed due to a copyright
> > violation.
> In totally clear cut cases like this, the stolen theme should be removed from
> Addons with immediate effect and then, if required, the situation can be
> assessed later.
> 
> In my view, Addons has no right to ignore the copyright concerns of an
> extension or theme author once they have made their concerns known directly to
> AMO.
> 
> Your above suggestions are valid if the concerned theme author has not made
> contact with AMO.
> 
> When the Mostly Crystal theme by CatThief was stolen, it the stolen version was
> removed within one hour.
> 
> 7 days is totally unacceptable in a case like this.

I think what you wanted to say was "7 days is too long; 24 hours would be better".

There's no need to throw around rhetorical devices like "ignore" -- which is so trivially untrue in this context it should be embarrassing for you to write it -- or add pointlessly inflammatory phrases like "no right" or "totally unacceptable".  It doesn't help resolve the issue, and it doesn't make anyone want to engage in dialogue with you about how the process can be improved to better address your concerns.

Want to try again?

Comment 8

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #7)

> I think what you wanted to say was "7 days is too long; 24 hours would be
> better".
> 
> There's no need to throw around rhetorical devices like "ignore" -- which is so
> trivially untrue in this context it should be embarrassing for you to write it
> -- or add pointlessly inflammatory phrases like "no right" or "totally
> unacceptable".  It doesn't help resolve the issue, and it doesn't make anyone
> want to engage in dialogue with you about how the process can be improved to
> better address your concerns.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
Yes Mike, that is exactly what I meant to say.

I used the term 'ignore', not in the sense that that this issue has not been very quickly looked into, but in the sense that by leaving a clear cut issue unresolved for a period as long as 7 days is, to all extents and purposes, ignoring it. i.e. any doubt as to how to resolve the issue has already been removed by the original theme author directing contacting AMO and asking, which is what I was doing, that the stolen theme is removed, with immediate effect.

Your suggestion of a 7 day resolve period is fine, where the position is more unclear.

Better? :)

Comment 9

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

OK, I can see wanting a faster path for the clear-cut cases.  (I have to say this, though: it is _not_ for all intents and purposes "ignoring" to have a 7 day window for the author to respond.  "Ignoring" doesn't mean "not as fast as I'd like", it means "not acting on at all".  DMCA takedown notices also have a 7 day response window, IIRC, which is where I initially got the timeframe from.)

Amended proposal:

Review of complaint by AMO admin or deputy, one of three outcomes.

Clearly a violation: mark as disabled upon completion of review, notify author of offending add-on, add annotation to the add-on description informing users of the copyright violation.

Possibly a violation: send mail to author of allegedly offending add-on with bug URL, giving them 7 days to respond and resolve.  If no response in 7 days, disabled, and annotation (perhaps a slightly different one).

Clearly not a violation: RESOLVED WONTFIX

Is that better?

Comment 10

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #9)
> OK, I can see wanting a faster path for the clear-cut cases.  (I have to say
> this, though: it is _not_ for all intents and purposes "ignoring" to have a 7
> day window for the author to respond.  "Ignoring" doesn't mean "not as fast as
> I'd like", it means "not acting on at all".  DMCA takedown notices also have a
> 7 day response window, IIRC, which is where I initially got the timeframe
> from.)
> 
> Amended proposal:
> 
> Review of complaint by AMO admin or deputy, one of three outcomes.
> 
> Clearly a violation: mark as disabled upon completion of review, notify author
> of offending add-on, add annotation to the add-on description informing users
> of the copyright violation.
> 
> Possibly a violation: send mail to author of allegedly offending add-on with
> bug URL, giving them 7 days to respond and resolve.  If no response in 7 days,
> disabled, and annotation (perhaps a slightly different one).
> 
> Clearly not a violation: RESOLVED WONTFIX
> 
> Is that better?
> 

My apologies, maybe it's a transatlantic thing, but we seem to have had slightly different definitions of the term 'ignore'.

I am not completely clear on what the term 'mark as disabled' as disabled means. If it means 'removed from Addons' then that Amended proposal would seem to satisfactorily address all situations.

The second, the 7 day one in the case of a 'Possible Violation', is, in my view, as equally important as the first. The 'justice' side of this has to cut both ways. We cannot have extensions and themes just vanishing, where there is any possible doubt. There was a case like this only the day where there was an alleged  'rip' from aaron. This was looked into and found not to be the case. If only #1 had been in place then, that disputed extension would have had it's progress disrupted. 

Perhaps you can advise on the 'mark as disabled' part? 

Comment 11

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

I am indeed concerned about false positives and nuisance complaints as well.  I would expect the first path there "clearly a violation" to be taken only where it is truly quite clear, and I'd expect that morgamic or myself or some other senior AMO admin would review the reasoning to be sure.

"Mark as disabled" means to change the state of the add-on in the database such that it's not available for download or update, and doesn't appear in search results or rss feeds and such.  The files and data aren't deleted from the system, but nobody can do anything with the add-on until that state is cleared.  We could actually purge the add-on completely after some longer time for appeal (3 months? 12?) but I wouldn't be in a rush to do so.

We'll maybe have more options post-Remora, but for now I think this would be fine.

Please stop adjusting the severity of this bug.  It won't get you anywhere, and it's sort of rude (in a passive-aggressive way).

Comment 12

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #11)
> I am indeed concerned about false positives and nuisance complaints as well.  I
> would expect the first path there "clearly a violation" to be taken only where
> it is truly quite clear, and I'd expect that morgamic or myself or some other
> senior AMO admin would review the reasoning to be sure.
> 
> "Mark as disabled" means to change the state of the add-on in the database such
> that it's not available for download or update, and doesn't appear in search
> results or rss feeds and such.  The files and data aren't deleted from the
> system, but nobody can do anything with the add-on until that state is cleared.
>  We could actually purge the add-on completely after some longer time for
> appeal (3 months? 12?) but I wouldn't be in a rush to do so.
> 
> We'll maybe have more options post-Remora, but for now I think this would be
> fine.
> 
> Please stop adjusting the severity of this bug.  It won't get you anywhere, and
> it's sort of rude (in a passive-aggressive way).
> 

I can assure you, that if you mean me, that I have not touched the severity of this bug, since I first submitted it. I marked it as 'Critical' initially (because I knew no better) and have not touched it since. Seeing as we are in the middle of discussing this, why would I anyway? Got the wrong guy there.

Hmmm.....just thought, is it because I am refreshing this page and not going to the bug afresh each time?

That aside, with the clarification of 'mark as disabled', I would say that your Amended Proposal covers 'all bases' fine.

I suppose in case #1, where it relates to graphics, then the complaining author could be asked to supply an obvious image to speed the review. In my case, this would be this : http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7078/snag0820ap7.png
...the Firefox 'About' window. This could then be compared almost immediately.

My apologies, if I initially seemed a little irritated and I can assure you that this was not meant to be directed at all towards AMO staff. However, having seen the reactions of other authors to 'Clear Violations, then at least I can say that it's not just me, :)  

Comment 13

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

You just put it back to the old component, and set the severity again, alas.  (See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_activity.cgi?id=360396 for a record.)  Don't just reload the page to add a new comment, if that's what you're doing now.  Shift-reload, or open it in a new tab.  Thanks.

Comment 14

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #13)
> You just put it back to the old component, and set the severity again, alas. 
> (See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_activity.cgi?id=360396 for a record.) 
> Don't just reload the page to add a new comment, if that's what you're doing
> now.  Shift-reload, or open it in a new tab.  Thanks.
> 
Once again, apologies. This is only the second bug report that I have ever done. It will not happen again (hmm, knowing my luck, despite going through Gmail, Ctl +F5, etc this time, this damn thing will go to 'Critical')

I will leave you to mark this as 'Fixed', which I think it is, don't you? ....as I'm not going to touch it, :)

Comment 15

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

I don't think it's fixed yet: the theme in question is still not disabled.

Who wants to write the SQL to do that? morgamic? fligtar? My laptop is not yet back to the point at which I will be able to use it to test such SQL, but I can try to do it later tonight once I (hopefully) get to that point.

Comment 16

[Frank Lion]

(In reply to comment #15)
> I don't think it's fixed yet: the theme in question is still not disabled.

True.

But I'm quite happy on your Amended Proposal, if you are.
 
What did you think of my idea of an author linking graphics in a graphics related violation? Useful?

Comment 17

[Mike Shaver (:shaver emeritus)]

Sure, anything that makes it easier to evaluate the claim is welcome, I think.

Comment 18

[Cameron]

(In reply to comment #9)
> Review of complaint by AMO admin or deputy,

The Custom Brushed (3823) theme does indeed contain icons identical to those in Metal Lion - Brushed iCe (2484).

The icons are copyright but "The Metal Lion theme code base" is apparently under the MPL. My recollections of the MPL is that bundling stuff under multiple licenses is permitted.

Comment 19

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

The SQL is:
UPDATE version SET approved='DISABLED' WHERE ID='3823';

After this is run, the author should be changed to [e-mail] and the description updated about the violation and a link to this bug.

For reference, the real author of the theme in violation is: 67878, https://addons.mozilla.org/developers/usermanager.php?function=edituser&userid=67878

Comment 20

[Frank Lion]

I imagine that there is some technical difficulty in progressing this bug, however, I would be grateful if someone could advise me on this.

Comment 21

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

I thought shaver was taking care of running the SQL. I have filed the IT request and this should be resolved today.

Comment 22

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

SQL has been run, author has been removed, description has been updated, and author has been emailed.

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3823?nocache