Without being an expert, I have a doubt about the legality of this prohibition, for the legitimate owners of a license obviously.
Do you have any reliable information about this?

 

https://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic.php?t=183095#p1281329

 

That doesn't mean that this restriction is legal.

 

Making a skin itself is not illegal but it breaks their licence agreement. Sharing a skin is an copyright violation and probably illegal under copyright law.

 

Should not be illegal if:
1. The ability to modify the look of the program is not blocked/turned off in the released software.
2. The skin(s) are not being modified & distrubuted for profit without prior arrangement/agreement.
3. Skin is not modifying the underlying code that makes up the functionality of the program
4. Skin is not making program unrecognizable

 

Last edited: Sep 16, 2018

"Sharing files associated with skinning FL Studio 12 and above (.dlls), or FL Studio 11 and below (.bmp, .tga etc) are violations of both Copyright and or the EULA. We will take action to remove infringing material wherever we find this on the internet.

The EULA: 7. User obligations Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the User shall not, nor give anyone permission to (i) download, duplicate, rent, lease, alter, modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or create derivative works based on the Software; ..."

Its their software, I guess they can dictate how its to be handled. I don't see the 'prohibition' as 'illegal' and they can enforce it under copyright law.

 

If this is legal or not doesn't depend on the EULA, but on valid national laws. At least this is the way it's handled in my country.

 

A link negating what you just posted. Image-Line showing how to modify FL Studio using scripting.
https://www.image-line.com/support/flstudio_online_manual/html/plugins/editortool_run.htm

 

if you didnt buy it you didnt agree to the eula
modifying is using someone elses code though. not sure if you started from scratch, but even freeware comes with this kind of restriction

 

It's like sodomy laws...how could they actually enforce it?

 

First Amendment applies. You may draw or paint anything you like. Use (your) artwork as you see fit. Attachment to an existing work, selling or plainly (re)distributing that altered work can constitute infringement of applicable copyright law(s), (US & International).

 

EULA is about the user, not just the buyer. So even free trial software is included and copyrighted. Installing any software you agree to some terms at the start..

 

Good point, @pingu. Freeware/public domain is commonly mistaken for non-copyrighted. Copyright holders (owners) may elect to make their work available to public, cost-free. Still copyrighted.

 

What does the Edison scripting tool have to do with modifying FL Studio?. Thats for making scripts to edit audio, it doesn't modify or change any code in the program.

 

IL are on shaky legal ground with this, but they know nobody is willing to go to go to court to defend their skins. They could enforce that their TOS forbids you to modify the program, and even have it to a CRC check and refuse to run if you change anything. That would IMO be lame, but within their rights.

Instead, it looks like they go after skins themselves as derivative work, which really is debatable. If I load their assets in Photoshop and change them, saving a new version would be derivative. But it's not too hard to create new graphics resources from scratch without using anything of theirs. If you create new graphics for a program, you are as entitled to your copyright of those as the developers are to their graphics that you don't use. The only real exception to this would be using their trademarks in your graphics, their name or logos. If your graphics actually say "Image Line", or "FL Studio", that would be infringing upon their trademarks rather than copyright. But if you make stealth skins that aren't based upon theirs, and don't use their trademarks, they would have an uphill battle proving why you shouldn't be free to distribute them.

Of course, law depends upon jurisdiction, and there are probably exceptions to everything somewhere.

 

yep i blam Lunarpole