More Art Thievery

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

I do not agree. Concept art is concept art, game assets are game assets.

Within the reality of concept artwork, photobashing is a common practice and is not any crime; It easily falls upon fair usage, especially when it's partial stuff where the copied part is a small or a non-highlight (like a background) of the art.

See I can't agree with concept art being the disclaimer here. It is still being used as a marketing piece, its sole purpose is to drive sales of an item, therefore direct monetary gain could be attributed to something that contains appropriated content. Obviously this depends on exactly what has been copied and how central it is to the item being sold, a few floor textures, for example, would not be of concern.

Erillion

BeansnBread said:

Isn't that the point though? There are multiple examples of this happening over time? It's not the only slip-up, but one of like 10 slip-ups?

Care to name those 10 slip ups ?

I am aware of 1 (that freelancer using parts of deviantart pictures), maybe 2 (the recent discussion about similiarities in nebulae between EVE Online and Star Citizen ... most likely because both paid for the pictures to a third party that created them). I saw mention of a possible third in the reddit discussion (a reflected  image of a logo in a puddle of water).

What are the other 7 you speak of ?


Have fun

 

Erillion

BeansnBread said:

It would be great if they licensed it. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

Do you have any insider information that you want to share with us ?

Proof that shows that they have not paid the license fee ?

The use of the watermarked picture alone does not mean CIG did not pay the license fee. The only thing you can know for sure is that someone forgot to replace the watermarked placeholder with a non watermarked version (and that this non watermarkedversion better be an official picture with the license fee paid). The rest is speculation and personal opinion.


Have fun

FlyByKnight

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.

Its hilarious how silly people are on both ends of the Star Citizen spectrum. You can't type away the facts. Once a piece of work is published for sale or promotion of a product the ball game has started. There is no "Nope".

Stop making things up... never mind. Run for for office.

Erillion

FlyByKnight said:

Stop making things up... never mind. Run for for office.

Become president.

There is evidence that this works.


Have fun

MaxBacon

FlyByKnight said:

Its hilarious how silly people are on both ends of the Star Citizen spectrum. You can't type away the facts. Once a piece of work is published for sale or promotion of a product the ball game has started. There is no "Nope".

Stop making things up... never mind. Run for for office.

Get real!

I want to see you winning a lawsuit based on a concept art with a partial copy of an asset from someone else's being that the asset copied is not the highlight/point of the art in question.

Put it as, the recent case of EvE's nebula on the shown concept art of a moon. I want to see the case not falling upon fair usage, or at max a takedown.

You will be able to claim damages with a game asset copied from you on the product being sold, good luck spinning that on something partial within a piece of concept art.

FlyByKnight

Phry said:

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?

Licensing infringement and the amount of money that could potentially be involved in damages is very "real".  It is what it is.

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

Care to name those 10 slip ups ?

I am aware of 1 (that freelancer using parts of deviantart pictures), maybe 2 (the recent discussion about similiarities in nebulae between EVE Online and Star Citizen ... most likely because both paid for the pictures to a third party that created them). I saw mention of a possible third in the reddit discussion (a reflected  image of a logo in a puddle of water).

What are the other 7 you speak of ?

Have fun

Just have a browse through some of the links in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/quityourbullshit/comments/4ncg4v/video_game_company_fails_at_removing_watermark/

1.Woman in front of ship
2. Strike Vector artwork
3. the guy from Lost
4. a whole bunch of stuff used for ArcCorp concept artwork
5,6,7. all the stuff that Ryan Archer did etc.

While the importance of some of the stuff is arguable it does show a willingness to take other people's artwork, not just stock art and use it themselves which is a bit crappy to be honest.

SpottyGekko

FlyByKnight said:

Phry said:

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?

Licensing infringement and the amount of money that could potentially be involved in damages is very "real".  It is what it is.

Let's keep it in context, lol

What do you think the "damages" would be regarding misuse of a $5 image ?

I know that in some countries your hand will be amputated for theft, but in the western world the penalties are generally scaled to the amount of the alleged "crime"...

FlyByKnight

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

Its hilarious how silly people are on both ends of the Star Citizen spectrum. You can't type away the facts. Once a piece of work is published for sale or promotion of a product the ball game has started. There is no "Nope".

Stop making things up... never mind. Run for for office.

Get real!

I want to see you winning a lawsuit based on a concept art with a partial copy of an asset from someone else's being that the asset copied is not the highlight/point of the art in question.

Put it as, the recent case of EvE's nebula on the shown concept art of a moon. I want to see the case not falling upon fair usage, or at max a takedown.

You will be able to claim damages with a game asset copied from you on the product being sold, good luck spinning that on something partial within a piece of concept art.

In the real world "concept art" is something that stays within the doors of an office. Once it's used for promotion of a product it has left the building.

I know in the early access, founders package, kickstarter cult world you live in it's not "real" until your pastor tells you but unfortunately the legal departments at 123rf, Getty, and Shutterstock don't give a flying funk about CIG fan/hater theory.

You're literally making stuff up, then when presented with facts that can be checked, retort with how you feel and what you wish to see. At least you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express amirite?

MaxBacon

FlyByKnight said:

You're literally making stuff up, then when presented with facts that can be checked, retort with how you feel and what you wish to see. At least you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express amirite?

So you're telling me CPP could  successfully win against CIG at claiming damages for a partial nebula of theirs on CIG's moon concept art?

Can you exemplify cases of that nature that did succeed?

You're the one living on another world here, just I mentioned concept art not the legal department of the company who owns the imagine that was indeed a game asset.

Erillion

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

Care to name those 10 slip ups ?

I am aware of 1 (that freelancer using parts of deviantart pictures), maybe 2 (the recent discussion about similiarities in nebulae between EVE Online and Star Citizen ... most likely because both paid for the pictures to a third party that created them). I saw mention of a possible third in the reddit discussion (a reflected  image of a logo in a puddle of water).

What are the other 7 you speak of ?

Have fun

Just have a browse through some of the links in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/quityourbullshit/comments/4ncg4v/video_game_company_fails_at_removing_watermark/

Woman in front of ship, Strike Vector artwork, the guy from Lost, a whole bunch of stuff used for ArcCorp concept artwork, all the stuff that Ryan Archer did etc.
While the importance of some of the stuff is arguable it does show a willingness to take other people's artwork, not just stock art and use it themselves which is a bit crappy to be honest.

I known that link and have mentioned it (and the examples) above.

Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.


Have fun

Erillion

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

You're literally making stuff up, then when presented with facts that can be checked, retort with how you feel and what you wish to see. At least you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express amirite?

So you're telling me CPP could  successfully win against CIG at claiming damages for a partial nebula of theirs on CIG's moon concept art?

Can you exemplify cases of that nature that did succeed?

You're the one living on another world here, just I mentioned concept art not the legal department of the company who owns the imagine that was indeed a game asset.

>>> of theirs >>>

It is not "theirs" as it was done by a third party. Has been discussed already in depth in another thread here.  And all of those nebulae are basically based on Hubble Space Telescope pictures from NASA.


Have fun

FlyByKnight

SpottyGekko said:

FlyByKnight said:

Phry said:

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?

Licensing infringement and the amount of money that could potentially be involved in damages is very "real".  It is what it is.

Let's keep it in context, lol

What do you think the "damages" would be regarding misuse of a $5 image ?

I know that in some countries your hand will be amputated for theft, but in the western world the penalties are generally scaled to the amount of the alleged "crime"...

It's not what I think. It is what it IS. The price to download the image for a standard license is irrelevant.

As I stated earlier I've seen the legal departments (which are larger than the sales dept) from stock sites go for $10,000 per image violation or calculate how badly the extended license was violated (based on where the offending pieces were published). I've also seen them be cool and simply request the purchase of the proper enterprise package to keep things clean.

MaxBacon

Erillion said:

>>> of theirs >>>

It is not "theirs" as it was done by a third party. Has been discussed already in depth in another thread here.  And all of those nebulae are basically based on Hubble Space Telescope pictures from NASA.


Have fun

Well then we can just go through the assumption the asset was fully theirs, on the same case.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

So you're telling me CPP could  successfully win against CIG at claiming damages for a partial nebula of theirs on CIG's moon concept art?

Probably not, but it's entirely possible Square Enix could make a successful case of their work being copied and benefitted from in the case of the Prowler / Copperhead.

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

1.Woman in front of ship,
2. Strike Vector artwork,
3. the guy from Lost,
4. a whole bunch of stuff used for ArcCorp concept artwork,
5,6,7 all the stuff that Ryan Archer did etc.

I known that link and have mentioned it (and the examples) above.
Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.

Have fun

It wasn't me that mentioned 7 other slip ups.
Anyway, I've numbered them in my post to make it easier for you, there are plently of examples via google of Ryan Archer to fill in slot 5, 6 and 7.

Have fun

Erillion

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

1.Woman in front of ship,
2. Strike Vector artwork,
3. the guy from Lost,
4. a whole bunch of stuff used for ArcCorp concept artwork,
5,6,7 all the stuff that Ryan Archer did etc.

I known that link and have mentioned it (and the examples) above.
Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.

Have fun

It wasn't me that mentioned 7 other slip ups.
Anyway, I've numbered them in my post to make it easier for you, there are plently of examples via google of Ryan Archer to fill in slot 5, 6 and 7.

Have fun

True, it was @BeansnBread that spoke about 10 slip ups.

@BeansnBread
Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.

@rpmcmurphy
"Slot 5,6 and 7" ... that is all one case .... all from the same freelancer and all have been removed by CIG from the website  as soon as they were aware that it was not geniune artwork created by the contract freelance artist they hired.


Have fun

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Probably not, but it's entirely possible Square Enix could make a successful case of their work being copied and benefitted from in the case of the Prowler / Copperhead.

That was my point from the difference between concept and asset. If that asset of theirs was added to the actual game they would have all the right to claim damages.

On the case of Prowler / Copperhead is ridiculous for me, they are similar even based on it, but as it's done everywhere from games to movies, the similarity is not a crime, it's like saying cars like this and this are a copy from each other.

BeansnBread

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

1.Woman in front of ship,
2. Strike Vector artwork,
3. the guy from Lost,
4. a whole bunch of stuff used for ArcCorp concept artwork,
5,6,7 all the stuff that Ryan Archer did etc.

I known that link and have mentioned it (and the examples) above.
Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.

Have fun

It wasn't me that mentioned 7 other slip ups.
Anyway, I've numbered them in my post to make it easier for you, there are plently of examples via google of Ryan Archer to fill in slot 5, 6 and 7.

Have fun

True, it was @BeansnBread that spoke about 10 slip ups.

@BeansnBread
Still waiting for the other 7 "slip-ups" you mentioned.

@rpmcmurphy
"Slot 5,6 and 7" ... that is all one case .... all from the same freelancer and all have been removed by CIG from the website  as soon as they were aware that it was not geniune artwork created by the contract freelance artist they hired.


Have fun

I came up with 10 out of thin air. I guess it was only 3-7.

Erillion

BeansnBread said:

I came up with 10 out of thin air. I guess it was only 3-7.

Ahhh .. ok then.


Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

"Slot 5,6 and 7" ... that is all one case .... all from the same freelancer and all have been removed by CIG from the website  as soon as they were aware that it was not geniune artwork created by the contract freelance artist they hired.

Have fun

No it's not all one case, it's multiple examples by one person but that doesn't mean it's not multiple infringements.
You asked for more examples, you got them and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Probably not, but it's entirely possible Square Enix could make a successful case of their work being copied and benefitted from in the case of the Prowler / Copperhead.

That was my point from the difference between concept and asset. If that asset of theirs was added to the actual game they would have all the right to claim damages.

On the case of Prowler / Copperhead is ridiculous for me, they are similar even based on it, but as it's done everywhere from games to movies, the similarity is not a crime, it's like saying cars like this and this are a copy from each other.

If the asset is used to sell goods they would in all probability have the right to claim damages. Why do we keep coming back to this? Do you follow cases via popehat, techdirt and the like to get an idea of how these things play out or are you working off supposition?

Yes, ridiculous to you but you are not an IP lawyer. There are indeed ships that have a similar style in sci-fi but it would come down to how closely it represents another companies work, hell CIG even stated it was too close to the Final Fantasy ship.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

If the asset is used to sell goods they would in all probability have the right to claim damages

On way worse cases, like League of Legends stealing Final Fantasy Intro Trailer together with Warcraft songs stolen and put on one of their landing pages to register on their MMO: http://vda.gtarcade.com/?q=150201Q2ntMp2

Nobody cared, neither Square Enix, neither Blizzard and Enix is Chinese they could very well go after them, so the ridicule would be go after a game with similar ship design withing a concept instead. Comparing to that, this is nothing.

MaxBacon

------------

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

If the asset is used to sell goods they would in all probability have the right to claim damages

On way worse cases, like League of Legends stealing Final Fantasy Intro Trailer together with Warcraft songs stolen and put on one of their landing pages to register on their MMO: http://vda.gtarcade.com/?q=150201Q2ntMp2

Like nobody cared, neither Square Enix, neither Blizzard and Enix is Chinese they could very well go after them, to care to go after CIG for a similar ship design would be rather hilarious seeing the other guys stealing everything theirs.

I can't watch that at work, no flash installed on this machine.
I don't see anything on any search engine about it but those companies are very protective of their IPs so if they felt it was worth pursuing there would be news about it,  ie https://www.destructoid.com/hearthstone-rip-off-being-sued-by-blizzard-269356.phtml

Obviously it's a blatant ripoff so there's very little to be contested which is quite different from licensing for a piece of music or artwork.
The smaller cases are no doubt done via legal threats rather than proceeding to actual lawsuits.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

I can't watch that at work, no flash installed on this machine.

On the case of League of Legends, the background includes 2 videos, one of them is the Final Fantasy IV intro trailer. There's 2 songs, both from Warcraft. Years after and even people pointing out that is still up, Blizzard can't act because the company is Chinese, but Enix could and didn't care.

Chinese companies get away with completely cloning western games that will then be protected by many legal complications. Blizzard with ties on China was able to win that one. Now that yes is a real problem that would deserve more attention from people.