More Art Thievery

filmoret · February 2017

Its fake news I tell you. Planted there to destroy CIG.

MaxBacon · February 2017

filmoret said:

Its fake news I tell you. Planted there to destroy CIG.

HUSH HUSH Mr "alternative facts".
:proud:

We're all doomed

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

filmoret said:

Its fake news I tell you. Planted there to destroy CIG.

And no doubt it's all engineered by the criminal mastermind known as Derek Smart.

MaxBacon · February 2017

@rpmcmurphy great now you triggered the filter he has for his own name. gg you.

Maybe if we keep this thread going for 10 or 20 pages he will appear

Horusra · February 2017

Anyone on this website worried about copyright infringement or art thievery is in the wrong place. Just look at the Nost threads. It is seems to a lot of games it is just fine so long as you like the product being made from the theft.

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

MaxBacon said:

@rpmcmurphy great now you triggered the filter he has for his own name. gg you.

Maybe if we keep this thread going for 10 or 20 pages he will appear

Now we just need the Goons to cap things off.

Horusra said:

It is seems to a lot of games it is just fine so long as you like the product being made from the theft.

This does seem to be the way of things.

CrazKanuk · February 2017

rpmcmurphy said:

Forgrimm said:

That's generic clip art that's used in a ton of different places.

You can still see the identifying watermark on it, which indicates it's been used without permission.

I think that what he means is that it's NOT copyrighted material. There are actually a handful of companies selling this exact image (google it). So I don't think they have copyright for it. The image could actually be public domain for all we know. What we CAN say with 100% certainty is that 1) there is a watermark on it and 2) there are at least a handful of other companies with this exact same logo, watermarked with their own site.

So what does that mean? If the image is public domain, that means that they don't need a license to use it anyway. Companies are more than welcome to put a watermark on it, but they don't have claim to it at all. Selling public domain material is quite common. One thing is for certain, this company does not have a copyright of the image. Do they have a license to resell it? Who knows. My guess is that the image is public domain, though.

spankybus · February 2017

It is also they used it without permission in early development. CR then reviews and approves the look and they go buy it. Honestly, they might be either too lazy or too busy to replace it.

Do not misunderstand me, I am a professional artist...i want cash for my work. If they did not buy it, then they are cheap bastards.

But my point is, there are many other scenarios that negate theft. People who really want to hate this game won't even consider this, but, whatevers. It's really between CIG and the vendor/artist.

But seriously, this is like a football team gets new uniforms and someone is calling out the color of a random fiber on the tip of a shoelace on one particular player.

Erillion · February 2017

>>>>They might want to pay closer attention to what art is being included in the future and that they are actually paid for.<<< I agree with that ... especially when hired freelancers are involved.

For all we know (or NOT know) CIG has tried out certain art and has paid for (or will pay for) the art piece that will be used in the final game.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

CrazKanuk said:

I think that what he means is that it's NOT copyrighted material. There are actually a handful of companies selling this exact image (google it). So I don't think they have copyright for it. The image could actually be public domain for all we know. What we CAN say with 100% certainty is that 1) there is a watermark on it and 2) there are at least a handful of other companies with this exact same logo, watermarked with their own site.

So what does that mean? If the image is public domain, that means that they don't need a license to use it anyway. Companies are more than welcome to put a watermark on it, but they don't have claim to it at all. Selling public domain material is quite common. One thing is for certain, this company does not have a copyright of the image. Do they have a license to resell it? Who knows. My guess is that the image is public domain, though.

Or what's more likely is that the copyright holder has granted a license to those other companies to sell their work and then recieves a royalty on those sales, in the same way that you see mp3s etc for sale in numerous online stores.

spankybus said:

It is also they used it without permission in early development. CR then reviews and approves the look and they go buy it. Honestly, they might be either too lazy or too busy to replace it.

Do not misunderstand me, I am a professional artist...i want cash for my work. If they did not buy it, then they are cheap bastards.

But my point is, there are many other scenarios that negate theft. People who really want to hate this game won't even consider this, but, whatevers. It's really between CIG and the vendor/artist.

But seriously, this is like a football team gets new uniforms and someone is calling out the color of a random fiber on the tip of a shoelace on one particular player.

But that would just point to a lack of due diligence. Companies typically take a good deal of care to avoid putting themselves in situations where they get called out for this sort of crap, no matter how small it is. That's part of being professional.

Sure, by itself, it's not a big deal but why even allow it to happen in the first place, and why allow it to happen numerous times (it's probably getting on to a dozen times now).
Given how scrutinising the internet is why do we not hear of other companies behaving in such a flippant manner?

sacredfool · February 2017

*yawn*

Seriously? I mean, I am not a fan of SC but this is such a non-issue. Most probably just a placeholder waiting for approval at which point they'll either remove it or buy the image.

Or a graphics designer is being lazy and should be fired.

CrazKanuk · February 2017

rpmcmurphy said:

CrazKanuk said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Forgrimm said:

That's generic clip art that's used in a ton of different places.

You can still see the identifying watermark on it, which indicates it's been used without permission.

I think that what he means is that it's NOT copyrighted material. There are actually a handful of companies selling this exact image (google it). So I don't think they have copyright for it. The image could actually be public domain for all we know. What we CAN say with 100% certainty is that 1) there is a watermark on it and 2) there are at least a handful of other companies with this exact same logo, watermarked with their own site.

So what does that mean? If the image is public domain, that means that they don't need a license to use it anyway. Companies are more than welcome to put a watermark on it, but they don't have claim to it at all. Selling public domain material is quite common. One thing is for certain, this company does not have a copyright of the image. Do they have a license to resell it? Who knows. My guess is that the image is public domain, though.

Or what's more likely is that the coyright holder has granted a license to those other companies to sell their work and then recieves a royalty on those sales, in the same way that you see mp3s etc for sale in numerous online stores.

Yup! That's a possibility as well. All I'm saying is this isn't likely to do anything except give the photo website some free marketing.

filmoret · February 2017

CrazKanuk said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Forgrimm said:

That's generic clip art that's used in a ton of different places.

You can still see the identifying watermark on it, which indicates it's been used without permission.

I think that what he means is that it's NOT copyrighted material. There are actually a handful of companies selling this exact image (google it). So I don't think they have copyright for it. The image could actually be public domain for all we know. What we CAN say with 100% certainty is that 1) there is a watermark on it and 2) there are at least a handful of other companies with this exact same logo, watermarked with their own site.

So what does that mean? If the image is public domain, that means that they don't need a license to use it anyway. Companies are more than welcome to put a watermark on it, but they don't have claim to it at all. Selling public domain material is quite common. One thing is for certain, this company does not have a copyright of the image. Do they have a license to resell it? Who knows. My guess is that the image is public domain, though.

If the image is public domain then why cant they get ahold of a copy without the watermark?

tawess · February 2017

MaxBacon said:

Rusque said:
If you have a designer on staff who isn't capable of "removing"/filling in the water mark to make the image look whole, then you need to question their capacity to do the work you're paying them for.

This is the silly part because it was so lazy put there as that. I hope they know who created that piece of art and get a talk with the guy.

If not fire him, that type of work is not worth paying for. --'

To any sane person that would say that it is either

A: it is placeholder

B: Someone forgot to update it.

C: Human error.

and really nothing to go insane over... One just ticket support with a coordinates and then move on with ones life.

The outrage that some people display is crazy.

filmoret said:

If the image is public domain then why cant they get ahold of a copy without the watermark?

Stressed out level designers.

MaxBacon · February 2017

tawess said:
To any sane person that would say that it is either

A: it is placeholder

B: Someone forgot to update it.

C: Human error.

and really nothing to go insane over... One just ticket support with a coordinates and then move on with ones life.

The outrage that some people display is crazy.

The outrage is the normal negativity from people who want to stay that way and look for things to continue the negativity flow towards SC/CIG.

But I know there's always those type of artists that are quite lazy, they can lie and just steal and get away with it until something is publicly found about it. Those artists need to get fired.

Now if this comes from one error or place-holder that wasn't changed then that's another story.

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

tawess said:

To any sane person that would say that it is either

A: it is placeholder
B: Someone forgot to update it.
C: Human error.

and really nothing to go insane over... One just ticket support with a coordinates and then move on with ones life.

The outrage that some people display is crazy.

I think you're reading too much into things. There's no "going insane" or "outrage" here, just a case of pointing and laughing at the incompetents getting caught yet again.

What people seem to be forgetting is that this artwork is in a product that is being sold, that constitutes a resale of artwork that they may not have a license for.

Vrika · February 2017

sacredfool said:

*yawn*

Seriously? I mean, I am not a fan of SC but this is such a non-issue. Most probably just a placeholder waiting for approval at which point they'll either remove it or buy the image.

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.

MaxBacon · February 2017

rpmcmurphy said:
I think you're reading too much into things. There's no "going insane" or "outrage" here, just a case of pointing and laughing at the incompetents getting caught yet again.

On other words, nit-picking.

The effort that must have been to find such a small thing as this asset in-game pretty much proves that point.

tawess · February 2017

*points to some of the posts in the thread about copyright*

On that we disagree.

As for license.. we know not how they have obtained the artwork (per se.. we know where it is from.. but not anything else) or even if it is going to be part of the final product. I agree that it is silly to have it... But the game is not per se released yet (no point arguing the fact.. you can count it as what the heck ever you want... But it still is not listed as released) so it does technically NOT constitute resale. Is it still left in at release, sure we can argue. But at that point it will at the very worst be the purchase of a what... 12$ vector license (not that it will stop some money hungry fucker from trying to make a case of it)

In short... it is a non-issue at this point in time.

CrazKanuk · February 2017

filmoret said:

CrazKanuk said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Forgrimm said:

That's generic clip art that's used in a ton of different places.

You can still see the identifying watermark on it, which indicates it's been used without permission.

I think that what he means is that it's NOT copyrighted material. There are actually a handful of companies selling this exact image (google it). So I don't think they have copyright for it. The image could actually be public domain for all we know. What we CAN say with 100% certainty is that 1) there is a watermark on it and 2) there are at least a handful of other companies with this exact same logo, watermarked with their own site.

So what does that mean? If the image is public domain, that means that they don't need a license to use it anyway. Companies are more than welcome to put a watermark on it, but they don't have claim to it at all. Selling public domain material is quite common. One thing is for certain, this company does not have a copyright of the image. Do they have a license to resell it? Who knows. My guess is that the image is public domain, though.

If the image is public domain then why cant they get ahold of a copy without the watermark?

I'm sure they could. Or maybe they're in the process of licensing it from this site! Or maybe it's a placeholder image. Or maybe it was intentionally planted there because all the SC threads have died out. Or maybe it's one of a hundred other much less nefarious things that is being blown out of proportion. Either way, I was just making the point that it's not copyright infringement.

MaxBacon · February 2017

CrazKanuk said:
Or maybe it was intentionally planted there because all the SC threads have died out.

This makes sense. There has been lack of drama and negativity on the forums on the past days, someone had to get life support going to bring it back.

rpmcmurphy does not disappoint, we're back!

tawess · February 2017

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...

Vrika · February 2017

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

CrazKanuk · February 2017

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.

rpmcmurphy · February 2017

MaxBacon said:

On other words, nit-picking.

The effort that must have been to find such a small thing as this asset in-game pretty much proves that point.

It's funny that you want to throw around the nit-picking accusation when spending an awful amount of time nit-picking any post that you disagree with, you can't have it both ways.

I do however, fully agree that the effort (or luck) required to find a piece of art like this must be quite phenomenal but if that's what people want to do, that's entirely up to them.
On the other side of things you have people posting news for every fart that comes out of CIG, one obsession is not really that much different than the other.

MaxBacon said:

CrazKanuk said:
Or maybe it was intentionally planted there because all the SC threads have died out.

This makes sense. There has been lack of drama and negativity on the forums on the past days, someone had to get life support going to bring it back.

rpmcmurphy does not disappoint, we're back!

It's the 3rd highest post on the subreddit. It seems people over there are quite happy to discuss it, why not here Mr Tenderheart?

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.

Howdy, Stranger!

More Art Thievery

Comments

This have been a good conversation

This have been a good conversation

This have been a good conversation

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

More Art Thievery

Comments

This have been a good conversation

This have been a good conversation

This have been a good conversation