Look at the background, and those details and stuff.
For me when I build my website I find it hard to know exactly what colours and how I want it to look, so I need like a website that has these kind of stuff.
You probably don’t understand me right, but if you could share your best website with good background like his, shapes for websites, basically the stuff you need for it to look good.
I mean, packs would be nice, but background images really have to fit the site. While that background image might be nice for a band, I would never use it for my current project (a church).
This wouldn’t be painted - that would be a long and tedious task. It is most probably a photo of grungey concrete texture overlayed onto a dark bg in photoshop. Relatively simple to do the - trick is getting it to tie inconspicuously.
Also try googling something along the lines of ‘tiled textures’. Or download texture packs used for 3d software like 3dsmax - they usually contain tileable jpegs.
No. This would be painted. A concrete texture w/ Photoshop brushes of different colors for the splotches.
[…]the amount of altering required is probably significant enough to bypass copyright. Good one! …wait. You weren’t joking? No. Don’t do this. Most works have protection against altering or changing the work.
Also try googling something along the lines of ‘tiled textures’. Or download texture packs used for 3d software like 3dsmax - they usually contain tileable jpegs.
Of course, Ryan also encourages you to make sure that the packs or textures are free - because if it wasn’t, that’d, of course, be plagiarism. Which is bad (not to mention illegal). Thanks for promoting good ethics, Ryan.
I was under the impression that if a work was altered to the point of being unrecognisable as the original work than it is perfectly reasonable to use it.
A rather radical stance to consider all editing of copyrighted material unethical.
Anyway I looked it up. There are circumstances where the editing of copyrighted material considered ‘fair use’ and avoids infringement. Some of which are when a new work is formed from the original in which the new work bares no substantial similarities to the original or if the new work does not compete in the market place of the original.
If it’s unrecognizable as the original (ignoring potential watermarks) it’s just unethical. It’s be extremely hard to prove it was taken from the original. The original designer would have to actually be LOOKING to see if it was a fraud, and even then it should be only a guess.
Good one! …wait. You weren’t joking? No. Don’t do this. Most works have protection against altering or changing the work.