More Art Thievery

tawess

Vrika said:

tawess said:

Vrika said:

If that is true, then CIG has intentionally made a copyright infringement.

Copyrights apply to all test releases, alpha releases, etc. the same way they do for final release. The license needs to be bought before any release, and it looks like CIG or someone working on behalf of CIG has decided to not do that.

link me the legal paragraph / EULA if you so may... 

How about Wikipedia?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Exclusive_rights

Copyright is nice... But that is not really what we was talking about... I was alluding to you claim that it applies equal to both released an unreleased media (sure in it´s most basic form it does.. But as far as i have understand.. Once you bring reality in to the mix it becomes a fuckton more complicated. ) 

Or in short... Point me to a specific place that say that a studio is can not use placeholder art in a unreleased project. 

sure once the game is released one could argue 

• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

But that would only be applicable if A: the work is not to generic or B: there is not a actual contract overriding the basic copyright of the author. 

And even so since it is such a small item and replacing it is pretty much instant... No real problem would arise even if the game is to ship with it as people would have to prove malicious intent.  

Vrika

CrazKanuk said:

Vrika said:

tawess said:

Vrika said:

If that is true, then CIG has intentionally made a copyright infringement.

Copyrights apply to all test releases, alpha releases, etc. the same way they do for final release. The license needs to be bought before any release, and it looks like CIG or someone working on behalf of CIG has decided to not do that.

link me the legal paragraph / EULA if you so may... 

How about Wikipedia?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Exclusive_rights

IT IS NOT COPYRIGHT MATERIAL!!!!!! You can't just slap a watermark on an image and claim it as yours. On top of that, this is part of a $37 clipart package that has been resold since like 2010, so if CIG was REALLY concerned they could buy that package and they would own a license, just the same as the website. If there is a license at all, which there may not be. 

The copyright of an image does not really cease no matter how much it's sold, resold and distributed. Also the duration is long enough that it's unlikely have expired.

Unless you can show where the creator released that image from copyright, it should still have copyright.

tawess

Vrika said:

The copyright of an image does not really cease no matter how much it's sold, resold and distributed. Also the duration is long enough that it's unlikely have expired.

Unless you can show where the creator released that image from copyright, it should still have copyright.

And the fact that copyright applies is irrelevant from any point beyond just stating that it applies (something we are not entirely sure of at this point unless you have a link the ORIGINAL file. ) because no legal action will be taken.. At worse CGI will get a politely worded letter asking them to change the art... 

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

As I've said to you before, if this type of thing upsets you so much then refrain from reading or posting, all you're doing at the moment is shit-posting.

It doesn't upset me, I'm not going to refrain from posting as I retain the same right as every other poster and their level of contribution (or not, mostly not) to the thread. But anyway, if it isn't for threads like this, this forum would be dead and there would be no drama, fights or the discussions in circles that we all love, so I guess I need to thank you.

Slapshot1188

Kind of reminds me of when Mortal Online "borrowed" the TOS or EULA (forget which) from Eve Online and forgot to even change the text so it said that if you were caught cheating in Mortal Online they could ban you in EvE...

LOL


Edit to add-  I found the old posts on this and here is the TOS/EULA section I mentioned:

Quote:

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TERMINATION OF YOUR ACCOUNT BY STAR VAULT OR ONE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MAY RESULT FROM FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THESE RULES. SUCH TERMINATION WILL NOT ENTITLE YOU TO A REFUND OF ANY FEES PAID BY YOU FOR THE USE OF THE EVE ONLINE CLIENT, SERVERS OR WEB SITE. YOU WILL FORFEIT ANY UNUSED GAME TIME REMAINING AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION.

Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/331359/starvault-caught-in-apparant-instance-of-plagiarism-against-ccp-read-for-yourself-and-decide#ZT6GwhtBQpioBEi7.99

Phry

I think personally it would be hard, if not impossible to create a copyright case out of use of that particular image, its a fairly common image thats been used in advertising for years, not just  online, but in retail stores and even 'corner shops' once something like that is out there, its pretty much no longer bound by copyright laws, and just because an image has a code on it is fairly meaningless as it would likely take years just to narrow down exactly who was the first person to use it, it would be a fools quest. O.o

tawess

Slapshot1188 said:

Kind of reminds me of when Mortal Online "borrowed" the TOS or EULA (forget which) from Eve Online and forgot to even change the text so it said that if you were caught cheating in Mortal Online they could ban you in EvE...

LOL

I´d say it more reminds me of that insane singer vs GTA idiocrazy... But then again you seem to look at the company and i look at the community (and i use that term loosly)

FlyByKnight

Guys, unfortunately this ISN'T a non issue or nit-picking (from a licensing standpoint). The fact that they are publishing the product to SO many people and generating revenue the copyright owner can fleece them pretty soundly, especially considering this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen CIG caught doing this.

In most cases stock imagery companies will send you a warning and allow you to make a purchase to get right but when you start to calculate damages (which is what they do), it's by either how many images you were caught violating with or how many people over the base licensing agreement multiplied by x number. I've personally seen that number be $10,000 per image for something minor. It wasn't an actually license violation.

Best case scenario is they do have an account but designer was too lazy to log-in.

If somebody wanted to annoy CIGs legal department...

MaxBacon

FlyByKnight said:

especially considering this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen CIG caught doing this.

Nope, not game assets. The cases you're mentioning are with concept art.
What is far from in-game assets, that is the product being sold.

FlyByKnight

Also the designer isn't to blame here. It would typically be CIGs fault for not having an enterprise account with the stock imagery company or their creative/legal leadership not QC'ing things. These are responsibilities that are expected when we're talking about the amount of money they're playing with.

Phry

FlyByKnight said:

Guys, unfortunately this ISN'T a non issue or nit-picking (from a licensing standpoint). The fact that they are publishing the product to SO many people and generating revenue the copyright owner can fleece them pretty soundly, especially considering this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen CIG caught doing this.

In most cases stock imagery companies will send you a warning and allow you to make a purchase to get right but when you start to calculate damages (which is what they do), it's by either how many images you were caught violating with or how many people over the base licensing agreement multiplied by x number. I've personally seen that number be $10,000 per image for something minor. It wasn't an actually license violation.

Best case scenario is they do have an account but designer was too lazy to log-in.

If somebody wanted to annoy CIGs legal department...

they would need something a bit more real?

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

It doesn't upset me, I'm not going to refrain from posting as I retain the same right as every other poster and their level of contribution (or not, mostly not) to the thread. But anyway, if it isn't for threads like this, this forum would be dead and there would be no drama, fights or the discussions in circles that we all love, so I guess I need to thank you.

Indeed, if you're allowed to post everyone else is allowed to post as well, which is why your constant digging and judgemental comments only serve to make you look a bit two-faced.

We're discussing a company and their practices here so you've got no reason to get offended, and yet you want to make things personal by repeatedly making digs against me. So I'm going to ask you politely, how about just sticking to the topic or not bothering at all.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

especially considering this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen CIG caught doing this.

Nope, not game assets. The cases you're mentioning are with concept art.
What is far from in-game assets, that is the product being sold.

The thing is, a lot of the concept art was used explicitly for sales purposes, it's not just a screenshot that was put on the website to show design direction or something.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

So I'm going to ask you politely, how about just sticking to the topic or not bothering at all.

I gave my input on the topic already, as for the rest, it will be derailed drama about something the topic is not about, as every other topic on this forum as we're used to.

CrazKanuk

Phry said:

I think personally it would be hard, if not impossible to create a copyright case out of use of that particular image, its a fairly common image thats been used in advertising for years, not just  online, but in retail stores and even 'corner shops' once something like that is out there, its pretty much no longer bound by copyright laws, and just because an image has a code on it is fairly meaningless as it would likely take years just to narrow down exactly who was the first person to use it, it would be a fools quest. O.o

THANK YOU!!!! Someone who understands the idea of public domain material. 

By the way, just for anyone who cares to know, I spoke with the website and they admitted that they don't own the image, they are simply a reseller and they have no license to the image at all. I also emailed myself a chat log if anyone cares to see.......if their site can manage sending an email transcript which it has not managed yet. 

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

The thing is, a lot of the concept art was used explicitly for sales purposes, it's not just a screenshot that was put on the website to show design direction or something.

You can't put both on the same box, You can claim it as your opinion that they are the same thing, but they simply aren't because you'll be stretching so much crap to make your point, as art, where the copied/taken things, are partial bits that many times aren't even the point/highlight of the image.

Herase

So not thievery just laziness (maybe as we don't know why they didn't remove the watermark)? 

Think when people who have no interest in SC or aren't fan say this is grasping, think it's time to chill a bit

rpmcmurphy

Public domain only exists when duration of copyright on an item expires.
Phrases and words (of all things) get trademarked and copyrighted now despite being part of langauages for numerous years, just because there are previous examples does not mean that there is no copyright in place.

rpmcmurphy

Herase said:

So not thievery just laziness (maybe as we don't know why they didn't remove the watermark)? 

Overall this is a nitpick topic, you could find something with more substance to talk about.

Think when people who have no interest in SC or aren't fan say this is grasping, think it's time to chill a bit

Jesus people, get off your high horses.

They are quite happy to discuss it in the subreddit which is far more fanatical than this subforum and yet people here are being very stick-in-the-mud about topics like this.
Perhaps if there was more to talk about then that's what people would be doing, but there isn't and this is currently the 'trending' topic, like it or lump it.

As I have shown many times before I am a backer, have been for a long time but that doesn't mean I can't have a laugh that their mistakes... lighten up already.

bartoni33

Hey @MaxBacon, is it time yet?

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Perhaps if there was more to talk about then that's what people would be doing, but there isn't and this is currently the 'trending' topic, like it or lump it.

Why ya never post any positive trending topic? WHY CAN'T THERE BE ANY NICE THINGS?

You ruin EVERYTHING! I'm tririririrgered!

bartoni33 said:

Hey @MaxBacon, is it time yet?  

You must... resist.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Perhaps if there was more to talk about then that's what people would be doing, but there isn't and this is currently the 'trending' topic, like it or lump it.

Why ya never post any positive trending topic? WHY CAN'T THERE BE ANY NICE THINGS?

You ruin EVERYTHING! I'm tririririrgered!

You're more than welcome to do that if you feel it needs doing, aren't you?

tawess

rpmcmurphy said:

Public domain only exists when duration of copyright on an item expires.
Phrases and words (of all things) get trademarked and copyrighted now despite being part of langauages for numerous years, just because there are previous examples does not mean that there is no copyright in place.

And unless the ORIGINAL creator of that clipart comes forth and make a claim... There can be a million companies slapping their watermark on it. 

Does not give them any more right... 

ArChWind

rpmcmurphy said:

Public domain only exists when duration of copyright on an item expires.
Phrases and words (of all things) get trademarked and copyrighted now despite being part of langauages for numerous years, just because there are previous examples does not mean that there is no copyright in place.

IIRC the duration on a copyright is 72 years. I don't think it has expired yet if it is copyrighted.

CrazKanuk

rpmcmurphy said:

Public domain only exists when duration of copyright on an item expires.
Phrases and words (of all things) get trademarked and copyrighted now despite being part of langauages for numerous years, just because there are previous examples does not mean that there is no copyright in place.

The issue is that we're talking about someone who has taken a public domain PSD, put some text into it and licensed it. You can't own words, ask Donald Trump, he tried that already. Like I could find the same PSD, place "Guaranteed" in it and I could NOT copyright it. I could easily try selling it to someone stupid enough to buy it, but I can't copyright it. 

Anyway, I was able to figure out who the "original" artist was, if anyone actually wants to add him to facebook, PM me. I'm trying to keep my Facebook to double digit friends, so I'm not really interested, but if someone actually needs to hear it from the horses mouth that he didn't create the content, let me know and I will PM you his name so you can add him to Facebook.