So, shall I pull the soldier on the rooftop concept from the NMA Gallery?
Forlorn World - interview
- Thread starter Silencer
- Start date
Gerard Heime
First time out of the vault
Disclaimer:
This post isn't an official Ground Zero team statement, it just reflects my personal feelings towards this case.
The image with the man on the roof was a remake of somebody else's graphic.
The remake was made for fun/inspiration/learning new techniques or sth like that.
It was accidentaly mixed up with images that are 100% original and created only by our artists.
Then, it was given the FW logo and posted on our webpage by a person who was unaware that the image wasn't 100% our own work.
If the person had known that the image isn't a 100% original, he or she wouldn't post it.
That was explained by LooZ^.
I am quite aware that in the past, there were hostilities between our projects and many flamewars on other forums were fought.
Personally, I don't want any ill competition between the projects, because they are so different that we really don't have to get in each others way.
That's why I don't want to start a full scale war against B. I could, of course - but it would be senseless and would destroy both projects' reputations.
We simply appologized for our mistake, but for some, it wasn't enough. Given the circumstances, I think it was our right to defend ourselves.
The images posted above by me were not, in any case, an act of retaliation or revenge against Bourgeoisie.
It was fair play - they pointed out our mistake, we deleted the image that wasn't fully ours.
In return, we pointed out their mistake. I suppose, a logical step would be to remove those compromising images from the gallery and the page intro. Just like we did.
Thus, the score would be settled, and both sides could bury the hatchet.
I hope, that both the PR menager and the leader of Bourgeoisie will understand that and cease all hostile actions.
I also hope, that this little incident won't ruin our image in the eyes of potential players.
Please forgive us for the whole situation.
I assure you, that people from my project will be more careful next time when posting images on our site - and I expect the same from the Bourgeoisie team.
Sincerely,
Gerard
This post isn't an official Ground Zero team statement, it just reflects my personal feelings towards this case.
The image with the man on the roof was a remake of somebody else's graphic.
The remake was made for fun/inspiration/learning new techniques or sth like that.
It was accidentaly mixed up with images that are 100% original and created only by our artists.
Then, it was given the FW logo and posted on our webpage by a person who was unaware that the image wasn't 100% our own work.
If the person had known that the image isn't a 100% original, he or she wouldn't post it.
That was explained by LooZ^.
I am quite aware that in the past, there were hostilities between our projects and many flamewars on other forums were fought.
Personally, I don't want any ill competition between the projects, because they are so different that we really don't have to get in each others way.
That's why I don't want to start a full scale war against B. I could, of course - but it would be senseless and would destroy both projects' reputations.
We simply appologized for our mistake, but for some, it wasn't enough. Given the circumstances, I think it was our right to defend ourselves.
The images posted above by me were not, in any case, an act of retaliation or revenge against Bourgeoisie.
It was fair play - they pointed out our mistake, we deleted the image that wasn't fully ours.
In return, we pointed out their mistake. I suppose, a logical step would be to remove those compromising images from the gallery and the page intro. Just like we did.
Thus, the score would be settled, and both sides could bury the hatchet.
I hope, that both the PR menager and the leader of Bourgeoisie will understand that and cease all hostile actions.
I also hope, that this little incident won't ruin our image in the eyes of potential players.
Please forgive us for the whole situation.
I assure you, that people from my project will be more careful next time when posting images on our site - and I expect the same from the Bourgeoisie team.
Sincerely,
Gerard
I'm okay with that (basically)...
At the moment I?m a bit confused. Should I, or should I not.
________
MARIJUANA VAPORIZER
At the moment I?m a bit confused. Should I, or should I not.
________
MARIJUANA VAPORIZER
Hang on
I'm a bit unclear on what our Upper Citizen-class folk of Intoxicate did wrong as for you to demand they pull down all those images.
The Fallout-based concept art is technically wrong, since it's not game-related but "copied" concept art, I suppose.
City of the Lost Children I don't know, so I wouldn't know what's wrong with their using it as inspiration (which, note, is not the same as copying images by drawing more-or-less straight copies of them)
Removing the classic Burzuja sign would be ridiculous. Using a real-life photo and editing it to fit the design is perfectly alright. Hell, it's great, it's one of the best ways to get concepts (concept art, after all, is meant to bring concepts) and using it for a logo is way, way fine.
I'm a bit unclear on what our Upper Citizen-class folk of Intoxicate did wrong as for you to demand they pull down all those images.
The Fallout-based concept art is technically wrong, since it's not game-related but "copied" concept art, I suppose.
City of the Lost Children I don't know, so I wouldn't know what's wrong with their using it as inspiration (which, note, is not the same as copying images by drawing more-or-less straight copies of them)
Removing the classic Burzuja sign would be ridiculous. Using a real-life photo and editing it to fit the design is perfectly alright. Hell, it's great, it's one of the best ways to get concepts (concept art, after all, is meant to bring concepts) and using it for a logo is way, way fine.
Gerard Heime
First time out of the vault
One word:
copyright.
You cannot simply take someones photo, remeke it and publish it on the web.
And this is the case with the city limits photo remake and the City off the Lost Children remake.
You need to have the permission from the author, and usually on the image there should be some information that the image is by XXX and the remake was by YYY.
It is illegal.
Imagine, that somebody would took a graphic by Royo or Giger, change it in Photoshop and publish it as if it was his own work. He would have a lawyer on his doorstep faster then you could yell "illegal". Especially in the US of A, where copyright is as holy as Christ.
Its basically the same with concept arts - because Bourgeoisie is a commercial project, as I recall.
Sure, if B. was a fan made game distributed for free, publishing concepts based on other games wouldn't probably be a problem. But if it will be for sale, they're risking a lawsuit.
And belive me, those big gaming corporations are hunting down and exploiting every slip-up they can find. White Wolf wanted to take Ground Zero to court just because they wanted to call their game "Trinity" - just like one of the RPG books by White Wolf. Even though it was totally unrelated.
So, belive me, publishing that kind of things on the net is a big no-no.
That's why we removed our pic from the gallery and thats why Bourgeoisie should do the same.
copyright.
You cannot simply take someones photo, remeke it and publish it on the web.
And this is the case with the city limits photo remake and the City off the Lost Children remake.
You need to have the permission from the author, and usually on the image there should be some information that the image is by XXX and the remake was by YYY.
It is illegal.
Imagine, that somebody would took a graphic by Royo or Giger, change it in Photoshop and publish it as if it was his own work. He would have a lawyer on his doorstep faster then you could yell "illegal". Especially in the US of A, where copyright is as holy as Christ.
Its basically the same with concept arts - because Bourgeoisie is a commercial project, as I recall.
Sure, if B. was a fan made game distributed for free, publishing concepts based on other games wouldn't probably be a problem. But if it will be for sale, they're risking a lawsuit.
And belive me, those big gaming corporations are hunting down and exploiting every slip-up they can find. White Wolf wanted to take Ground Zero to court just because they wanted to call their game "Trinity" - just like one of the RPG books by White Wolf. Even though it was totally unrelated.
So, belive me, publishing that kind of things on the net is a big no-no.
That's why we removed our pic from the gallery and thats why Bourgeoisie should do the same.
intoxicate
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Master - please translate this post.
Gentlemen, what are you trying to get at? I explained this to Looz privately. Frankly I'm glad that other people point out our mistakes, like these arts. It's like master wrote - these arts are very old but they do have a connection with the project. We would very much like to make a few references to Fallout, so that it's fans could feel "the good old times". We wanted to make an update of our site and a new gallery at the same time, because right now it contains some work that's not "on the level" so to speak. However we didn't do it from lack of time. We will do it next time we update our site.
I really don't have anything against your project. I just showed you that you should be more careful what you publish. You guys took it personally.
I didn't take those post personally - I got everything planned. All things will come in the right time. First things first (like for example: a part of the interactive presentation, so you could see the effect of our work.
A lot of things will change in a short time (our website, our company's website, our hosting). Just a wait a bit more.
_peace_
Gentlemen, what are you trying to get at? I explained this to Looz privately. Frankly I'm glad that other people point out our mistakes, like these arts. It's like master wrote - these arts are very old but they do have a connection with the project. We would very much like to make a few references to Fallout, so that it's fans could feel "the good old times". We wanted to make an update of our site and a new gallery at the same time, because right now it contains some work that's not "on the level" so to speak. However we didn't do it from lack of time. We will do it next time we update our site.
I really don't have anything against your project. I just showed you that you should be more careful what you publish. You guys took it personally.
You don't have to worry about that. Things are a bit different in our team as we tend to spend more time and effort on the project itself instead on publicity. We are very busy making an interactive presentation for an investor, so we can't find the time to make frequent updates. Here is where I would like to apologize everyone abroad who is waiting for us to translate the latest news item. Our translator is currently busy working in other departments like the demo's RPsystem QA.
I didn't take those post personally - I got everything planned. All things will come in the right time. First things first (like for example: a part of the interactive presentation, so you could see the effect of our work.
A lot of things will change in a short time (our website, our company's website, our hosting). Just a wait a bit more.
_peace_
Gerard Heime
First time out of the vault
intoxicate - that was my post, not LooZ's. I didn't know you already settled the case privately.
So, as I understand, everything is m'kay?
As for my last post, I just wanted to make sure that Kharn and the rest of NMA users will uderstand what's this all about, and I hope I was effective in doing so.
So, as I understand, everything is m'kay?
As for my last post, I just wanted to make sure that Kharn and the rest of NMA users will uderstand what's this all about, and I hope I was effective in doing so.
Gerard Heime said:
Not really, it's not.
Unless directly used to make profits of, images can be used, if edited, under the American Fair Use law. And this is the internet, so we're under American juridstiction. Look it up if you don't believe me. I ran a parody-website for years, never got problems, thanks to good old Fair Use.
Though I suppose they technically can't use anything too directly from City of Lost Children in their game if they make profits from it.
The sign if legal, though. Technically, the City of Lost Children and Fallout stuff isn't.
Taking a piece of art and modifying it without expressed permission and claiming it as yours is hardly legitimate.
With photos it's always a bit tricky to decide whether it's a piece of art or just an ordinary depiction of a landscape/architecture/whatever, but usually it's safer to treat them as original art unless you have bulletproof evidence to the contrary, i.e.: find the copyright holder and get their permission -- or in the case of property that is in the public domain: just put a note on the origin of the photo with your derived work.
I guess using non-specific details of a photo (e.g. ground texture) is not a problem unless the origin is too obvious.
With photos it's always a bit tricky to decide whether it's a piece of art or just an ordinary depiction of a landscape/architecture/whatever, but usually it's safer to treat them as original art unless you have bulletproof evidence to the contrary, i.e.: find the copyright holder and get their permission -- or in the case of property that is in the public domain: just put a note on the origin of the photo with your derived work.
I guess using non-specific details of a photo (e.g. ground texture) is not a problem unless the origin is too obvious.
It?s illegal.
Any photo/picture etc. that isn?t you own and you use it without permission is technically illegal. It?s another matter if the material as been given to the public without any copyright restrictions (I think Nasa?s Hubble pictures are such). Then you can use it freely.
Mostly you can avoid this little sucker by mentioning where you have gotter the picture. For example giving credits to the original owner, or asking his permission to use it. Basically you should ALWAYS ask for permission, but mostly giving credits to the owner is enough (when it?s not commercial).
If you take pictures from the internet and use them without permission or you don?t check that it?s copyright free you are FUCKED.
Of course you can go and take a picture of Big Ben and copy the layout so it looks the same. This is legal, because it?s your work.
If I remember correctly pictures are categorized as art. There are quite many different levels of copyright (moral copyright being one).
In this situation (if I?ve understood it correctly). A person edited the original work (FUCKED) and published it. Perhaps the person did NOT inform it was HIS, but he didn?t inform WHOSE the original was (FUCKED). Nor ask for permission.
The other situation a person edited a PHOTOGRAPH that wasn?t his (TRULY FUCKED) and showed it as is own, or didn?t mention the origins. If he had taken (did she/he?) by himself/herself everything would have been ok.
People people...
________
Marijuana Strains
Any photo/picture etc. that isn?t you own and you use it without permission is technically illegal. It?s another matter if the material as been given to the public without any copyright restrictions (I think Nasa?s Hubble pictures are such). Then you can use it freely.
Mostly you can avoid this little sucker by mentioning where you have gotter the picture. For example giving credits to the original owner, or asking his permission to use it. Basically you should ALWAYS ask for permission, but mostly giving credits to the owner is enough (when it?s not commercial).
If you take pictures from the internet and use them without permission or you don?t check that it?s copyright free you are FUCKED.
Of course you can go and take a picture of Big Ben and copy the layout so it looks the same. This is legal, because it?s your work.
If I remember correctly pictures are categorized as art. There are quite many different levels of copyright (moral copyright being one).
In this situation (if I?ve understood it correctly). A person edited the original work (FUCKED) and published it. Perhaps the person did NOT inform it was HIS, but he didn?t inform WHOSE the original was (FUCKED). Nor ask for permission.
The other situation a person edited a PHOTOGRAPH that wasn?t his (TRULY FUCKED) and showed it as is own, or didn?t mention the origins. If he had taken (did she/he?) by himself/herself everything would have been ok.
People people...
________
Marijuana Strains
Somehow I feel that internet is U.S. belongs to the "Moronic highlights Top10"
________
vapir oxygen vaporizer
________
vapir oxygen vaporizer
Indeed, nobody has "jurisdiction" over the entire Internet. Internet consists of countless autonomous systems administered by private companies, government bodies and academic institutions. The only way for US government to exhibit control over the Internet as a whole is via ICANN, the only organization which manages DNS on global scale. Though they are a non-profit independent organization, their decisions must generally be green-lighted by the US government (Department of Commerce, I think). This relationship won't last much longer, however (human knowledge belongs to the world, stuff like that) - ICANN will either become a private company completely independent of the US government or be replaced by an international body, probably under jurisdiction of the UN.
Claw said:
That's incorrect. It's an international affair between the country where the original creator came from and Poland (or whereever the artist of the derived work is from). If the original creator lives within the EU too, EU legislation applies.
Anyway. In EU law (AFAIK) there is a category for photographs that are pretty much just generic depictions of the subject matter, in those cases it can be considered fair use.
Even so it's better to be on the safe side and just ask, unless it's in public domain anyway.
The sheep is right about just crawling the Internet and using third party images without any consideration of the copyright, btw. That's almost always a really bad idea.
master_of_flamaster
Mildly Dipped
Once again I translated Intoxicate's post.
Kharn said:
Since both those games are going to be sold in stores (hopefully), using images by the teams at promotional materials should be considered commercial and not protected by Fair Use Acts, American, European or Mongolian for that instance.
That said, you're all making a Molerat out of a regular one. Both teams have been circulating art that was copied, or rather processed, from someone else's art. The only problem was that the FW team had unconciously labelled one of those arts and used it as promo material, which LooZ^ already apologised for. Case closed, images taken down. I believe that's how matters are usually handled on the Internet, unless someone's an ass and wants to line his attorney's pockets.
Kharn said:
On an American server, I believe?
Kharn said:
Well, yeah, I don't believe they were going to use it ingame, though.
Anyway, if someone wants to find out how fair use is determined, take a look at Wikipedia's image policies -- given the nature of the project, they had to deal with that topic A LOT in the past.
Ashmo said:
*cringes*
Using Wikifuckingpedia as if it is a valid legal resource is probably one of the biggest mistakes one can make.
Wikipedia is a lot. Reliable is not one of these things.
People; NMA's server is in the States. That means that before going to court any grievance and immediate action would go through States' laws.
Which, you're right Silencer, doesn't go for our Polish compadres.
What a bunch of whinging. One thing, though;
frissy said:
This is not true. Again; Fair Use. Even copyrights are restricted.
Example? NewGrounds. Everything on NewGrounds, idiotic additions nonwithstanding, is 100% totally legal within the US lawsystem, which is what governs NewGrounds. Why? Because while a lot of material on NewGrounds is copyrighted, it all falls under Fair Use.
Again, idiotic addition nonwithstanding.
Kharn said:
Would you care to read WHAT I said first?
I didn't say "read Wikipedia's article on Copyright Law", I recommended taking a look at their image policy, which is rather bulletproof because of all the shit they need to take into account.
I wouldn't recommend relying on it for anything or using it as legal basis for anything, but it works as a solid guideline (with some obvious exceptions).
Fair Use is fairly relative to the location of the server (and the user, and the host), so unless things are very clear (as in the case of NMA), it's not particularily reliable (being a German hosting files on an American server run by a German company doesn't neccessarily mean you or the company can't be held liable for whatever you publish on that server even if it is legal under US law).
PS:
Don't cringe on me.