But, why is it illegal to post one?

There are tons of highly expensive or even limited edition faces. A simple website credit and its ok. But why can’t someone post galaxy watch face cause its proprietary? So what’s the thing? A clockskin version of the mechanical watch is ok and for a copy of watch, face skin is illegal? Somebody explain. I made this copy. But its not entertained here.


1 Like

First of all I like to say, There is an honor code amongst programmers/designers that produce these works.

Most people have no idea what goes into the original design let alone recreating it. Such as what font was used in your example, and where do you find the animated background? More than likely it wont be the same. You cold ask Samsung source files but that wont happen.

In this community I can ask for permission to modify/repost a developers work.

Plus in this community you have resources to learn/ask questions on how to make your own watch faces.


This is inspired and yes. Samsung in house designer did a great job. Cause I start designing and end up with a crappy face. In this cause the fonts are different and yes the background though not animated but static. The blurry lights placement are all kinda different. So is it okay if I make available the download link?

@Ashik_Jonathan You are completely welcome to put this on your watch, but it goes against our policies to post this face. It isn’t currently against the law to recreate an existing digital (in this case, Wear OS) face for your own personal usage on full Android, however, due to copyright infringement laws as they are, you need express permission from the original creator of you wish to recreate and distribute.

Wear OS-based smartwatch companies pay good money for the exclusive rights to some really cool faces that would look awesome on full Android. Unfortunately, as the original creator of the faces may no longer own the rights, the creator can’t always give permission and the big companies pride the exclusivity of their faces, so they won’t give permission. To still recreate the faces and distribute constitutes copyright infringement. I also want to add that although many of these faces are stock or free to download from the companies’ servers, they had to pay the original creators for the exclusive rights to put them on their servers. This means that many these faces still classify as paid faces, at least in the eyes of this community.

Fortunately we have many amazing designers here. We have many amazing and original watchfaces on our servers. As long as you stay away from copywritten faces, you are welcome to consider yourself one of the amazing creators. Many people use this community to hone their skill and springboard their own personal brands, such as @Thiago_Cavendish and his Cavendish watches, @bricky_vl and Bricky Designs, and myself and Ryōshi-Sama Designs. (I also want to note that, although any direct download links are required to be free to download here, if you make an original face that you wish to get paid for, you are welcome to post a link to the outside site where it’s posted, as long as you make it clear that it’s not a free face. A picture of the face must be included, though)

I know this is a lot to digest at once, but I thank you for reading it and I hope at least some of this information is helpful to you.


@Nicholas_Herczeg is wrong in this case. It is a copy of a Samsung Stockface. Such a copy is allowed here, as we assume that Samsung owns the rights. A credit link must be added. This is exactly how it is with Stockfaces by Diesel andTagheuer Smartwatches. Whereby I personally advise against copying TH faces.

The situation is different with the stockfaces of fullandroid watches. 1st, we do not copy them because we have a deal with these companies: they do not copy us and we do not copy them.
And 2nd, the copyright for these faces can not always be clarified with certainty.


Also, that’s a tizen OS face. I used to use it on my S2 gear sometimes.

1 Like

Yes, but it’s not a custom tizen face made by an unknown face creator.


I understand, i wont post links. Its a creators creativity and its unfair to recreate or distribute. using near close design element that strike 80 percent similarity also could cause issues?

I think we should not make this complicated . Stick to the rules mate and all is good :+1: . Thanks for your contributions

Me learning forum rules


yeah lets close this. Let stick to original design


Now that is a very nice candid shot of @tim_Collins you have there mate! And I love the way he is looking up at you with that “I’ll just bet Doons chips in with some rubbish on this picture” look. :roll_eyes: Sorry Tim, but Ya gotta admit, this pic was just too good an opportunity to pass up! :rofl: Cheers, Doons
And yes folks, I realize that this was a serious discussion, but it seems that everyone has come to an understanding of the issue and I thought why not just toss some fun in as well…especially when it’s at our beloved Mentor Moderator (?!!:woozy_face:) Tim’s expense!


Wow this picture is great! :rofl:

1 Like

Haha . Like it :joy::joy::joy:

1 Like

Haha . Thankyou you mad friend :+1: . There is a story behind the monkey . I will explain one day


To give a couple more details on the copyright law.
Giving credit, does not imply having permission to use the work. Though often time, it’s easier to just post something, and then take it down if a copyright owner wants it removed. The watchfaces here aren’t for sale so there’s no monetary gain to be had.

The pictures i use in my watchface MAY be covered under fair use as they’re somewhat transformative. Though if any of the artists want one taken down, I’ll do so without hesitation.

But making a copy or replica of a copyrighted work, ie from Samsung, would fall under Substantial Similarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
And would be a violation of copyright law.
It’s this “Substantial Similarity” bit that gets ya.

Still, this forum seems to run on a “give credit where credit is due” and a “Go ahead and share it, just be prepared to remove it if the copyright owner wants it taken down.” kind of system.
Which I’m personally fine with. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission, especially when you have 10+ sources going into a single watch-face.


I’ve been wondering. I’d personally like to hear the story…when you are ready.

Nicholas, Dear old Friend…you really do NOT want to hear the “Story behind the monkey” :monkey_face:(AKA The story of the Moderator :speaking_head:…who is behind the profile picture of a Monkey!:monkey_face:…and what lies behind that…no man can say! :woozy_face:…because I had the dreadful details divulged to me…and I can assure you, my son, that for weeks afterwards I would awake, the echos of my fading screams piercing the night and the cold sweat :cold_sweat: accompanying my bodies uncontrollable paroxysms of sheer, undiluted terror :scream: Far better than you should live on , in carefree ignorance…thinking that @tim_Collins is just a regular, run of the mill Moderator…that to scratch away the surface and reveal the dreadful secret that lies beneath :alien:. Ye have been warned brother! :grimacing::woozy_face::rofl: Cheers, Doons