I have noticed that almost every html game uses famous porn stars from popular sites. Not that I'm complaining but how can they make money from patreon while using other peoples work?
Can someone explain why html games can use porn gifs/videos and not get in trouble?
- Thread starter kingslayingames
- Start date
That could be it. I guess if they are making money from patreon that's technically not having to pay for the game
Some porn sites give away sample images, and I'm honestly not sure to what extent those are legally protected. A lot of the gifs are likely taken from previews of videos, as well. So probably a combination of porn games as a whole being too niche for Mindgeek to care about legal threats, and patreon somewhat serving to launder the whole process by being donations for a continued service.
It's like how people make patreons for translations of works they don't have the licence to translate. That's breach of the game's copyright, legally speaking, but... nobody cares enough to stop it, because it kind of serves as overseas publicity for obscure titles, and that doing so would be more expensive than it's worth.
It's like how people make patreons for translations of works they don't have the licence to translate. That's breach of the game's copyright, legally speaking, but... nobody cares enough to stop it, because it kind of serves as overseas publicity for obscure titles, and that doing so would be more expensive than it's worth.
- Jun 10, 2017
- 10,384
- 15,291
Note: I'm not a lawyer, just someone with some knowledge regarding Law, this is not legal advice.
The only reason to starts one against an indie creator who earn near to nothing is to send a message ; "don't mess with our Intellectual Property". A message that will not become effective before you win the trial, therefore generally not before one year, and that will cost you more than the defendant will be able to pay you during his whole life.
While, obviously, Mindgeek would prefer to own and control the whole market, it works a bit like this forum. The more people will see your content/game, the more likely you are that some decide to spend money in order to see more. Therefore, starting trials would be counter productive for them. Globally speaking, they would spend money in order to earn less money.
But don't dream, if one day someone using their IP starts to have 5 digits earnings/month, they go after him. You can mess with their IP, but there's still limits to what they are ready to tolerate.
If they are free samples gave to sites owners, you have the right to use them, but not to distribute them, and the obligation to point to the owner site. Yet generally this authorization is limited in use, what mean that you can present them as a sample for this set/site, not in the way they are used by games.
It's mostly this. Trials aren't free, both in terms of money and in terms of time.
The only reason to starts one against an indie creator who earn near to nothing is to send a message ; "don't mess with our Intellectual Property". A message that will not become effective before you win the trial, therefore generally not before one year, and that will cost you more than the defendant will be able to pay you during his whole life.
While, obviously, Mindgeek would prefer to own and control the whole market, it works a bit like this forum. The more people will see your content/game, the more likely you are that some decide to spend money in order to see more. Therefore, starting trials would be counter productive for them. Globally speaking, they would spend money in order to earn less money.
But don't dream, if one day someone using their IP starts to have 5 digits earnings/month, they go after him. You can mess with their IP, but there's still limits to what they are ready to tolerate.
As anne O'nymous there, i'm no lawyer, though as a citizen i have my own understanding of it.
Base fact in my perspective revolves on patreon and similar crowd funding mediums aren't pay to acquire the content.
It's a pay to support the project/dev "a donation".
With that said, that money isn't for the content images, gifs ... instead it's for the work made around it.
Giving them grounds that they aren't making money from the resource but from their own work around those resources.
(Like the UI, the story, the choices, etc ...)
As i view it, it's a morally grey area where you technically can't be paid for something that in the 1st place aren't authorize to use, but at the same time you can be paid for the work you actually do.
(as an example streams can receive donations, but in their tuber videos if there is copyrighted music those go unmonetized meaning they receive nothing for their work on those)
Then you also mix in the fact countries depending on their laws, might ( or might not ) recognize that content to be subjected to Copyright rules, laws and etc...
Though it's a fallible premise for some titles, several could survive by morphing towards whatever regulations it has to abide to.
Several already stand in that morally and law abiding position example, like those titles you can easily replace the pics/gif galleries and you also have to download those separately or even create your own packs of pics and gifs.
Now whatever choice of implementation of those projects creators as well as consumers are responsible for possessing that content.
Base fact in my perspective revolves on patreon and similar crowd funding mediums aren't pay to acquire the content.
It's a pay to support the project/dev "a donation".
With that said, that money isn't for the content images, gifs ... instead it's for the work made around it.
Giving them grounds that they aren't making money from the resource but from their own work around those resources.
(Like the UI, the story, the choices, etc ...)
As i view it, it's a morally grey area where you technically can't be paid for something that in the 1st place aren't authorize to use, but at the same time you can be paid for the work you actually do.
(as an example streams can receive donations, but in their tuber videos if there is copyrighted music those go unmonetized meaning they receive nothing for their work on those)
Then you also mix in the fact countries depending on their laws, might ( or might not ) recognize that content to be subjected to Copyright rules, laws and etc...
Though it's a fallible premise for some titles, several could survive by morphing towards whatever regulations it has to abide to.
Several already stand in that morally and law abiding position example, like those titles you can easily replace the pics/gif galleries and you also have to download those separately or even create your own packs of pics and gifs.
Now whatever choice of implementation of those projects creators as well as consumers are responsible for possessing that content.