Please Stand By
February 17, 2006 12:42 PM   Subscribe

We've spoken previously of test patterns, almost all of which have been replaced with the ubiquitous Bars & Tones of color and digital broadcasting. But like me, you may have wondered: who created the original Indian Native American Head Test Pattern, what happened to the original artwork, and what did it look like up close? Since test patterns were broadcast with analog equipment onto the primitive CRT screens of yore, only a few people have seen a clear and crisp image of what is arguably the most famous test pattern of all time. That is, until now.
posted by fandango_matt (75 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
I had the artwork professinally restored

I'm gonna go ahead here and question his professinism.
posted by trondant at 12:47 PM on February 17, 2006


YAY FOR LARGE RED SAMPLE
posted by sourbrew at 12:50 PM on February 17, 2006


seriously though, this guy has some interesting stuff on his website, i hope that he intentionally is using a 1999 design and isn't just oblivious to the changes in web aesthetics.
posted by sourbrew at 12:53 PM on February 17, 2006


That site is like an infomercial on a public access channel. I'll just DL it for free somewhere if I really want it.
posted by acetonic at 12:53 PM on February 17, 2006


sourbrew:

That's the test pattern for shareware TV sets.
posted by qvantamon at 12:53 PM on February 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wait... there was a Back to the Future TV show?
posted by wfrgms at 1:02 PM on February 17, 2006


Interesting. I wonder what kind of copyright issues might apply here. The art is dated 1938 so RCA should still own the rights to that image and artwork (for a few more years at least) and here he is selling prints of it? Sounds a bit dodgy to me.
posted by ruthsarian at 1:09 PM on February 17, 2006


So this guy's claiming copyright on a drawing he found in a dumpster?


Nice try, but I don't think so. Unless it's been formally licensed to Mr. Pharis, the copyright still belongs to the original 1938 holder (either the artist or, more likely, the company that commissioned it) or that owner's heirs or successors.

Pharis' claims are bullshit.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:12 PM on February 17, 2006


Oh, and I saved all the images from Pharis' site onto my hard drive. Whatcha gonna do about that, Chuck?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:13 PM on February 17, 2006


I take Personal checks (they better be good), money orders, or Pay Pal. My account is:

That line was better than the rest of the page...
posted by anthill at 1:16 PM on February 17, 2006


I'm currently using the Indian Head Test Pattern as my desktop at work.

It's good stuff.
posted by davros42 at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2006


Also, it seems like the original artwork was taken from a dumpster on private property. That's theft. The guy who sold the artwork to Pharis is a thief, and Pharis is guilty of receiving stolen property.

That's how I see it, at least.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:20 PM on February 17, 2006


SPECIAL NOTICE:

Please do NOT copy the following photos without my permission. I own these, and you do NOT have permission to download them or use them without asking me first!


Ass.
posted by odinsdream at 1:21 PM on February 17, 2006


I wondered about his ownership claims and the copyright issues, too. Even if the artwork was discarded, I believe RCA still owns the copyright to the art. Right?
posted by fandango_matt at 1:24 PM on February 17, 2006


There is a hidden watermark on every letter in this sentence, and if I see them for sale by someone else, they will be hearing from me!
posted by rand at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2006


I can't believe you people.

Nary a peep about malicious, copyright protecting software distributed by Sony, Apple, and their ilk - and some poor dude tries to keep a corner on possibly the single cool thing he's ever found and you instantly transform into legal bloodhounds.

How much is RCA paying you, Mr_Roboto?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:35 PM on February 17, 2006


If this guy had given the artist an advance to provide for the creation of the artwork, you might have a point.
posted by trondant at 1:38 PM on February 17, 2006


Baby_Balrog writes "Nary a peep about malicious, copyright protecting software distributed by Sony, Apple, and their ilk - and some poor dude tries to keep a corner on possibly the single cool thing he's ever found and you instantly transform into legal bloodhounds."

You've fucking examined my entire goddamn posting history and analyzed it for a lack of response to copyright assholery by major corporations, have you, Baby?

Or are you just spouting off with a complete lack of knowledge and context?

Here's the boilerplate:

Copyright is abused by major corporations this is bad etc. Sonny Bono DMCA Lessig EFF DRM rootkit blah blah blah.

OK. Now that we've got that out of the way, this guy's being a self-righteous ass about a copyright he doesn't even hold. If you're going to be an ass about that kind of thing, you should make sure you're in the right.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2006


Point being: I make things and I hold copyrights on them. If someone were to go making money off of something I created, I'd be pissed. I don't care if that someone is Sony or some down-on-his-luck hobbyist with an aw-shucks mid-nineties "Web Page".
posted by mr_roboto at 1:48 PM on February 17, 2006


Mr_Roboto, I don't believe he's being a self-righteous ass, I think he's worried about not getting the "pay-off" for discovering this "treasure."

Maybe you're just angry that thanks to his BRILLIANT copy-right protection you can no longer illegally download images off of his site and sell them for profit. You wish YOU'D found the indian head painting - so that YOU'D be the one sleeping on gigantic. piles. of money.

And I still don't understand where this passion is coming from. Did your great uncle paint that Indian head?
The original was found in a dumpster, for god's sake.
If it had made it to the dump would you be more open to his entrepreneurial endeavor?

In fact, if I sell someone this vintage Jagermeister t-shirt I'm wearing right now, or better yet, a nifty portrait of me wearing the shirt, are you going to rush screaming to defend that poor, helpless liquor company from losing out on all the money they'd have made off of my awesome t-shirt?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2006


It doesn't matter. Now that this is getting web popularity, some sleazebag lawyer at RCA is going to find out about it, and they'll sue this poor guy into the ground.

And then I suppose you'll be smugly satisfied, right Mr_Roboto?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:55 PM on February 17, 2006


Baby_Balrog writes "In fact, if I sell someone this vintage Jagermeister t-shirt I'm wearing right now, or better yet, a nifty portrait of me wearing the shirt, are you going to rush screaming to defend that poor, helpless liquor company from losing out on all the money they'd have made off of my awesome t-shirt?"

No. That's the Doctrine of First Sale.

If you were to start printing your own Jagermeister t-shirts and selling them on the web, you'd be in the wrong.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:56 PM on February 17, 2006


Baby_Balrog writes "And then I suppose you'll be smugly satisfied, right Mr_Roboto?"

I don't know why you're so anxious to defend this ass. He's making money off of someone else's work.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:57 PM on February 17, 2006


Mr_Roboto, I don't believe he's being a self-righteous ass, I think he's worried about not getting the "pay-off" for discovering this "treasure."

Wow. That's like a long-winded oxymoron. Worrying about getting the "pay-off" for "discovering" this "treasure" is being a self-righteous ass.
posted by odinsdream at 1:59 PM on February 17, 2006


Also, it seems like the original artwork was taken from a dumpster on private property. That's theft. The guy who sold the artwork to Pharis is a thief, and Pharis is guilty of receiving stolen property.

That's how I see it, at least.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:20 PM PST on February 17


I was under the impression that once you throw something out, it no longer belongs to you. Or, if it's on private property, when does it become no one's property? When it hits the garbage truck? The landfill?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:03 PM on February 17, 2006


Odinsdream - I'm just imagining all those people who line up around the block when Antiques Roadshow comes to town.

They're not interested so much in the cultural value of their "finds" - they want to know if it will put their grandkids through college.

There's all kinds of vintage crap for sale on E-Bay, I don't see why this is any different.

Does large, red font on your website make you an ass?

Again...I suspect that you're all just trying to steal his thunder for bringing us the original nativeamericanheadtestpattern. The man should be lauded as a great treasure hunter of the modern age.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:03 PM on February 17, 2006


Optimus Chyme writes "I was under the impression that once you throw something out, it no longer belongs to you. Or, if it's on private property, when does it become no one's property?"

I'm actually not sure about this; I was mostly speculating up above. I'd be curious to hear who understands these issues chime (ha!) in.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:07 PM on February 17, 2006


Interesting. I wonder what kind of copyright issues might apply here. The art is dated 1938 so RCA should still own the rights to that image and artwork (for a few more years at least) and here he is selling prints of it? Sounds a bit dodgy to me.

Copyright dosn't apply unless you make a copy.

Anyway, yeah not that I belive this is real.
posted by delmoi at 2:07 PM on February 17, 2006


Also, it seems like the original artwork was taken from a dumpster on private property. That's theft. The guy who sold the artwork to Pharis is a thief, and Pharis is guilty of receiving stolen property.

That's how I see it, at least.


I'd love to see the case law on that.
posted by delmoi at 2:08 PM on February 17, 2006


delmoi writes "Copyright dosn't apply unless you make a copy."

That's what he's doing. He's selling copies at $40 a pop.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:09 PM on February 17, 2006


I downloaded the artwork and replaced the Indian head with the Mohammed cartoon and it is now my desktop.

Commence riots and lawsuits at your leisure.
posted by tkchrist at 2:10 PM on February 17, 2006


I too was dismayed that this guy found something of cultural value, part of many people's shared history, and the first thing that comes to mind is how he can make some $$$ off it. Faith in humanity not-restored.

And no I wouldnt have done the same thing. I would have just made hi-res scans available for free.
posted by vacapinta at 2:11 PM on February 17, 2006


i hope that he intentionally is using a 1999 design and isn't just oblivious to the changes in web aesthetics.

Yeah, because without a Web 2.0 design, the content might just as well not exist.
posted by slatternus at 2:11 PM on February 17, 2006


As far as the copyright issue is concerned, this fellow didn't create the artwork, but he obtained and scanned the original artwork, created new digital files, of which he is now selling high-resolution outputs. Is that legal?

Also, since he scanned and created new digital art, would he have legal recourse if someone removed the word "SAMPLE" from those images, made new artwork, and posted them on the Web?
posted by fandango_matt at 2:13 PM on February 17, 2006


Er, wait. Is he selling copies, and claiming copyright?

My guess is that this is a simple forgery, and the artwork was recreated from scratch, which would actually give him the copyright on the Indian head.
posted by delmoi at 2:14 PM on February 17, 2006


Just out of curiosity, why are you guys assuming that this is in any way legit? Is there any indipendant verification out there that this is real?
posted by delmoi at 2:16 PM on February 17, 2006


There's all kinds of vintage crap for sale on E-Bay, I don't see why this is any different.

In case it needs to be reiterated:

He's selling prints of the thing, not the thing itself. Vintage crap on e-bay is the original vintage crap, not a copy of it.
posted by odinsdream at 2:22 PM on February 17, 2006


I was under the impression that once you throw something out, it no longer belongs to you. Or, if it's on private property, when does it become no one's property? When it hits the garbage truck? The landfill?

You're about right. Stuff in the garbage does become public property. It's how all those tabloids can get away with going through the trash of celebrities.

But the copyright wasn't thrown away. Just the original artwork. For example, if you by a cel from some animated show, you own the cel, but you don't have the right to sell reprints of it. The image is still copyrighted by the production company. The same goes here. Regardless of how he got it, the image itself is still copyrighted.

Now if he wasn't selling prints, just posting images of the work, then it becomes a much more questionable issue and likely to not be considered a copyright violation. But by selling prints, it absolutely is a copyright violation, so long as RCA makes an attempt to enforce their rights. There's a bit in copyright law that basically says if a company doesn't try to enforce their copyrights, they more or less forfeit those rights. but defining how one does "not enforce" copyrights is a bit of a grey area.

Yes, this is stuff I've looked into (though IANAL) because I run a couple fansites where these issues can get muddy (remember the Paramount attack on trek fan-sites back in the day).

But to be honest this all probably won't come of much. I doubt RCA is going to really care, even if they haven't found out (which I'm sure they already have). It just irks me that this guy is trying to make money in this fashion. And the offensive red text hasn't helped my mood either.
posted by ruthsarian at 2:25 PM on February 17, 2006


I too was dismayed that this guy found something of cultural value, part of many people's shared history, and the first thing that comes to mind is how he can make some $$$ off it.

Me too. My first thought was the cool thing to do would be to give it to some reasonably well-known museum of broadcasting/technology/popular culture.
posted by Opposite George at 2:26 PM on February 17, 2006


delmoi writes "My guess is that this is a simple forgery, and the artwork was recreated from scratch, which would actually give him the copyright on the Indian head."

Would it?

I don't think so. If I were to create a perfect forgery of a copyrighted artwork, or reproduce a copyrighted piece of writing from memory, that doesn't give me a new copyright on it. The right to copy isn't limited to mechanical reproduction: forgery is a form of reproduction, too. The copyright stays with the original owner of the image.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:28 PM on February 17, 2006


Aside from the stolen content, the pre-95 web design (flashing stars in the background artwork on the homepage? oh baby!), what strikes me most odd is how someone with 40 years as a professional video-production person could not know how to spell schematic.
posted by nomisxid at 2:34 PM on February 17, 2006


I think some of us are missing another issue. This is not a piece of art of a book, it is a tool...a device for testing television patterns. If it is not patented, it can be copied at leisure.


oh, and I would add that the guys a jackass with an ugly site.
posted by Megafly at 2:51 PM on February 17, 2006


apache say "white man so funny..."
posted by quonsar at 2:59 PM on February 17, 2006


and I would add that the guys a jackass with an ugly site.

Maybe he'd take freelance design work in trade for a set of test patterns?
posted by Opposite George at 3:02 PM on February 17, 2006


This is the test card that gets me hot:



Carole Hersee, you haunt so many dreams...
posted by meehawl at 3:07 PM on February 17, 2006


bars and tone look really cool after a little x. no, really.
posted by squirrely at 3:09 PM on February 17, 2006


I was under the impression that before 1989, works that were copyright had to have copyright notices, or they would not be considered copyrighted. I remember this causing Romero to lose rights to Night of the Living Dead, and then leading to a bunch of shitty remixes.

As this image was likely created as a tool, as mentioned by megafly, it very likely wouldn't have had copyright notice attached, and thus is not copyrighted. The image on the site has the site owner's copyright, but if the original image was not copyrighted (and thus public domain), it seems legitimate to copyright a deriviation (the digital restoring) of it.

Or am I remembering things wrong?
posted by JZig at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2006


I can't even guess as to the legality of this issue...so I won't.

I can even forgive the web design. It's hard to believe, but there are folks out there that don't spend 12 hours a day on a computer, or have the time or inclination to keep up with current web design standards.

Instead I emailed the guy, and included this caveat:

"On your site, you request that people not copy the images on your site, or to scan the prints that you sell. I don't think that you will manage that very well. In today's age, information is free --especially with something as iconic and American as the Indian Head pattern.
It does seem odd that on one page of your site you ask for free equipment donations to your museum, but on another you don't even offer a free high-quality image that someone could use as computer wallpaper.

Thank you for sharing your story. "

(and thanks to fandango_matt for sharing this link!)
posted by mattybonez at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2006


This is the test card that gets me hot:

I'd hit it.

I mean the puppet! I'm no sicko!
posted by Opposite George at 3:18 PM on February 17, 2006


I too was dismayed that this guy found something of cultural value, part of many people's shared history, and the first thing that comes to mind is how he can make some $$$ off it. Faith in humanity not-restored.

Oh come off it! He's charging ten bucks per repro (there are four in a set for less than $40). He is not getting fabulously wealthy off this!

What a bunch of curmudgeons.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:23 PM on February 17, 2006


posted by mattybonez I emailed the guy, and included this caveat: "On your site, you request that people not copy the images on your site, or to scan the prints that you sell. I don't think that you will manage that very well. In today's age, information is free --especially with something as iconic and American as the Indian Head pattern. It does seem odd that on one page of your site you ask for free equipment donations to your museum, but on another you don't even offer a free high-quality image that someone could use as computer wallpaper. Thank you for sharing your story. "

(and thanks to fandango_matt for sharing this link!)


And thank you for writing him to diplomatically say exactly what I was thinking. Well said. Do please let us know how he responds!
posted by fandango_matt at 3:29 PM on February 17, 2006


There's a bit in copyright law that basically says if a company doesn't try to enforce their copyrights, they more or less forfeit those rights.

No, I believe you're thinking of trademarks, which can be lost if the trademark holder is not diligent about going after infringers. Copyrights (as well as patents) can be selectively enforced without any risk of the owner losing their rights.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:31 PM on February 17, 2006


What a bunch of curmudgeons.
If that ball rolls in my yard one more time, I'm keeping it!
/Damn kids.
posted by Opposite George at 3:34 PM on February 17, 2006


As mentioned a few times, but not as often as the rest of the angles...I think it's a fake. Super Original Indian Head Card For Realz! written on ripped brown paper, the fact that a lot of the pictures are taken on the ground as if he photo'ed it where he found it, and...I dunno...just something about it seems too "authentic" to actually be.
posted by rollbiz at 3:59 PM on February 17, 2006


Not to have comment diaharrea, but "note the 'Master Copy' in pencil!!1!11!" sums up my suspicions. As if pencil on brown paper couldn't possibly be forged.
posted by rollbiz at 4:03 PM on February 17, 2006


I don't think so. If I were to create a perfect forgery of a copyrighted artwork, or reproduce a copyrighted piece of writing from memory, that doesn't give me a new copyright on it.

You don't think so, but your wrong. If you re-create or create an enhanced version of a copyrighted work (remember, he would have created an enhanced version, with details not found in the original) then you do have a copyright to that work, but you obviously can't stop the original author from distributing his, but he can't distribute yours and neither can anyone else (including yourself, without his approval).

However, if the original author lets you distribute your version, you do have a copyright on that work, and can prevent other people from using it. If the original author doesn't care one way or the other, you can still prevent others from duplicating your work.

From what I understand, anyway.

The law doesn’t care how you, personally, feel.
posted by delmoi at 4:12 PM on February 17, 2006


I think it's a fake.

I guess it's possible, but it looks like Chuck's purchase was a matter of discussion on rec.antiques.radio+phono in March, 2004. Interestingly, that thread also touches on the copyright issue (as well as Tommy Chong's roach smoking -- gotta love the Usenet.)

Assuming these collectors know their stuff (I know, a big if) you'd think that unless it's an incredible forgery one of them would have called him on it.
posted by Opposite George at 4:20 PM on February 17, 2006


The old video trucks he's got for restoring are *awesome*. They're kind of like poor-man's Futurliners -- at least, if you've got a past history working in television and spend many hours locked away in similar boxes (ie me in the early 90s).

I'd love to see one of those trucks restored, stocked with the original cameras he's got, and kept around until the 100th anniversary of the first remote television broadcast.

Assuming television is still around in some fashion, it probably won't be broadcast via analog any more -- but it'd be fun to have a huge event where an analog broadcasting tower in a big city is turned on and used to broadcast the feed from this truck, starting with the test pattern, and segueing to coverage of a major sporting event done in the original (horrible) style. Anyone with an old analog television laying around (this would be in the 2030s, I think -- can't remember the exact year of the first remote broadcast) would be able to tune in for a little nostalgia.

Okay, so I'm a TV technology geek at heart. It still gives me goosebumps. :)
posted by davejay at 4:41 PM on February 17, 2006


Oh, as for this being a forgery -- it might be, but I can't imagine why someone would bother just so that they could make such a small amount of money. I'd be more suspicious if he was trying to sell the original for a ridiculous amount of cash.
posted by davejay at 4:43 PM on February 17, 2006


Baby_Balrog writes "Nary a peep about malicious, copyright protecting software distributed by Sony, Apple, and their ilk - and some poor dude tries to keep a corner on possibly the single cool thing he's ever found and you instantly transform into legal bloodhounds."

It's 'cause the guy was such an ass about not downloading stuff off his site: "I own these, and you do NOT have permission to download them or use them without asking me first!". Obviously hasn't first clue about how the web works and is being antisocial to boot. I'm surprised he didn't use the blink tag on his disclaimer.
posted by Mitheral at 5:30 PM on February 17, 2006


posted by vacapinta I would have just made hi-res scans available for free.

If anyone's interested, I'll create desktop wallpaper of that test pattern. Mac is 72 pixels--what's the PC?
posted by fandango_matt at 5:46 PM on February 17, 2006


Mac is 72 pixels

72 pixels? You running on Fisher Price hardware?
posted by milnak at 6:10 PM on February 17, 2006


Mac monitor resolution is 72 ppi; PC monitor resolution = 96 ppi for wallpaper, right? Help me help you.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:19 PM on February 17, 2006


hi again.
I received an email back from Chuck. (Seems like a nice enough guy to me.) Anyway, as fandango_matt requested, here is his reply to me. Chuck replied to some of the questions raised in the comments above, and also requested that I post it.

(The rest of this post is the email from Chuck)
-----
Hi, Matt.
It cost me thousands of dollars to get the INTP set restored.
I am semi retired, and thought it would be a nice way to earn a little extra money for all my efforts.
I do offer just the Indian Head pattern for sale now.
It's $12.95 + $4.05 shipping Priority Mail.
 
For all the work I did restoring it, I think my price is very fair.
 
I am receiving a lot of emails about the INTP.
 
Here is one:
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hopeless@pacifier.com
 
So, let me get this straight,

You got a hold of stolen property from some guy, and now are making false
claims of ownership of the copyright, and making illegal copies of your
stolen property?  And you put this all up on the web for RCA to find, so
they can sue you into oblivion?  Think McFly, Think!

what a tool you are

ps, 1995 wants their crappy webdesign back.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Here was my response:
 
Dear Hopeless! (great email name) It seems to fit you!
Hmmmmm, you are the one that needs to THINK! Or at least get your facts
straight!
Everything on my site is clear and correct.
I have met with the head Attorney for RCA. (The RCA rights now fully owned
by Thompson/Grass Valley)
I have fully searched the records at the US Copyright office.
I had the assistance of one of the TOP Copyright agents in the country.
NAB has done a search.
The PBS Tv Show, History Detectives has done a search.
Everyone agrees with me that I fully own the rights to my restored artwork.
The property WAS recovered from a dumpster. (Finders keepers)!!!!
One of the leading art critics in the country has authenticated it as "original"
I restored the artwork, and am legally claiming the Copyright.
If the lawyers at RCA/Thompson/Grass Valley wanted to sue me, they would
have, at the last meeting I had with them at NAB in 2005.
They saw the original artwork, and my restored artwork.
They wished me well! They have a copy of my artwork, and are very happy with it.
They know I restored it, and am selling it.
Believe me, after 40+ years in the television business, I would not do
something that STUPID!
I had the original artwork for over one year, and fully did my legal
research before I restored it for sale.

Relax, don't get so uptight over something you have NO facts on.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
So, ok Matt, since I have no interest on paying five bucks to comment on all the crap written about me on
MetaFilter, feel free to post the two emails I just forwarded to you.
 
Thanks,
Chuck
posted by mattybonez at 8:58 PM on February 17, 2006


Im in for whatever Fandango is selling. Then I am going to steal it and sell it myself and not let anyone take it from me.
posted by subaruwrx at 9:15 PM on February 17, 2006


If he's lyin, it's RCA's problem. He's put in a lifetime of dues working in TV, let him make a few bucks off a nostalgia piece.


I gots no beef with the guy, and his circa 1995 website has more actual content than five of the last six "Web 2.0" sites I've seen recently.

Shiny reflective .pngs does not a good website make.
posted by stenseng at 9:20 PM on February 17, 2006


A guy I know who does video production would look at the words "Master Copy" and say, "Well, which is it, the master or a copy?"

Which just goes to show, there was nothing wrong with me saying "master copy" that one time if they did it at RCA!
posted by kindall at 9:59 PM on February 17, 2006


See, you lunatics, there was no reason to freak out.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:52 AM on February 18, 2006


MetaFilter: Home of the Lynching Parties.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:23 AM on February 18, 2006


(Honestly, for a group that so strongly hates Republican tyranny, some y'all have an alarming tendency for tyranny yourselves...)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on February 18, 2006


So it looks like I was probably in the wrong. Sorry.

I've gotta stop responding to stress at work by picking fights on Metafilter. Maybe I should start drinking instead. Or working.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:52 AM on February 18, 2006


I know, start drinking at work! =)
posted by stenseng at 6:15 PM on February 18, 2006


Here's the test pattern for use as your desktop background wallpaper--this version is 640 x 480:



A larger 1024 x 768 version is here.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:21 PM on February 18, 2006


fandango_matt Noes!!! HE OWNZ the COpywrite!!
posted by odinsdream at 9:46 AM on February 19, 2006


Sounds like its close to 100% legit to me :D

Mind you nothing gets people on the internet debating things they don't understand like legal issues!
posted by johnsee at 4:19 PM on February 19, 2006


« Older Creative Americans: Portraits by Carl Van Vechten...   |   Who Needs Third Parties Anyways? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments