Posted by pacman

I'm not arguing but my point is valid. Your analogy actually makes no common sense in regards to the point I have made.

Also, you are kind of jumping around on the point I think you may be attempting to make. Are you talking about graal rules or the law? If you're talking about law and copyright infringement, well that's going to vary depending on country, state, county, etc.

You said "how can something be copyright of a copyright?" It's still copyright if you copy it. Again, if you rob a bank even after its already been robbed, it's still illegal. In this case, you are copyrighting something which has been copyrighted, and it's still copyright.  

Posted by Common Sense

You said "how can something be copyright of a copyright?" It's still copyright if you copy it. Again, if you rob a bank even after its already been robbed, it's still illegal. In this case, you are copyrighting something which has been copyrighted, and it's still copyright.

I don't disagree with you there. So shouldn't the original copyrighted material not be allowed? Instead I see it being used.  

Can somebody lock up this thread?
I don't think it's going anywhere anyway.
But if you can't understand pacman: smileys don't actually belong to anybody since everybody can use those. It's Ellybelly's head which is an admin, so you can't get it without his permission. Let's not talk about this anymore