Is it okey to use pirate content in games?

[polywog]

I have a related question - if a product/music/ etc. is licensed as "free for non-commercial use" do games on Patreon qualify as 'non-commercial' when the developer claims the game is free (or makes the game free eventually) and the Patreon is just for 'supporting my hobby'?

If your Patreon account is solely an artist account, you are good. As long as you don't say "ha ha they are brother and sister" nobody from patreon needs to know that your "art" is being used by some degenerate sex gamed developer.
If they ask you about the game. you reply OMG i can't believe those bastards are using my images in that manner.

plausible deniability works every time.

 

[GNVE]

Whenever I read these posts questioning copyright issues... some of the replies are the dumbest things said on this forum.

OP asks, If I steal a candybar from a convenient store, can I take pictures of it, and use them in my game...

Instantly a bunch of pussy-whipped morons come running saying it's illegal.

The answer is YES, you own the picture.... you created the picture using a fucking candybar as a model.
You aren't infringing anything. You aren't competing against the inventor of candybars, he can go eat a bag of dicks.

I think you're just trolling but I think you are actually partially right. (Though your example of the candy bar isn't very good since the picture you provided is a generic and functional shape you can't have a copyright or trademark on). Yes, you own the copyright to the original work you do (composition, lighting, camera placement etc.) but you don't own the copyright to the things that aren't transformed (e.g. textures models etc). By buying a product from the store you just get a licence to use it commercially.

If your Patreon account is solely an artist account, you are good. As long as you don't say "ha ha they are brother and sister" nobody from patreon needs to know that your "art" is being used by some degenerate sex gamed developer.
If they ask you about the game. you reply OMG i can't believe those bastards are using my images in that manner.

plausible deniability works every time.

If you make money it's commercial (there is a bit of a gray area in recouping cost but it's not a line I'd like to walk) and plausible deniability often doesn't work in copyright cases (see copyright trolls).

 

[polywog]

I think you're just trolling but I think you are actually partially right. (Though your example of the candy bar isn't very good since the picture you provided is a generic and functional shape you can't have a copyright or trademark on). Yes, you own the copyright to the original work you do (composition, lighting, camera placement etc.) but you don't own the copyright to the things that aren't transformed (e.g. textures models etc). By buying a product from the store you just get a licence to use it commercially.


If you make money it's commercial (there is a bit of a gray area in recouping cost but it's not a line I'd like to walk) and plausible deniability often doesn't work in copyright cases (see copyright trolls).

Daz sells car models. They don't use the real car names, because that would infringe a trademark, so Daz makes up silly names for the cars instead of calling them Ford, Mercedes, Lamborghini.... these Daz models are made in the likeness of the original Cars made by the car companies, and the car company holds a patent for that design, but patents have nothing to do with "copyright"

Obviously Daz does not own the likeness of these vehicles, nor can a likeness be copyrighted.

 

[felef]

steal a candybar from a convenient store

Pretty sure that's illegal.

 

[KiaAzad]

OP asks, If I steal a candybar from a convenient store, can I take pictures of it, and use them in my game...

the owner of those pictures is the one whom have taken them, but the act of stealing the candy bar is illegal and if those pictures are evidence of that crime, they may be confiscated as well.
There is this arrangement between copyright holders and most platforms on internet that allows the copyright owner to claim the income generated from their stolen property instead of going through a long and costly legal battle. You can see it in action on YouTube where the music companies claim the income of videos that have a small piece of their music on them.

 

[GNVE]

Daz sells car models. They don't use the real car names, because that would infringe a trademark, so Daz makes up silly names for the cars instead of calling them Ford, Mercedes, Lamborghini.... these Daz models are made in the likeness of the original Cars made by the car companies, and the car company holds a patent for that design, but patents have nothing to do with "copyright"

Obviously Daz does not own the likeness of these vehicles, nor can a likeness be copyrighted.

You can't copyright a generic car as you say but there are still elements that might be trademarked and outright remaking a model 1:1 in Daz is probably still copyright and/or trademark infringement. I'm not much a car guy but BMW has a very distinct grille that is part of their trademark. Or think of a Coke bottle. You can't trademark a bottle but the Coca Cola bottle is really distinct and thus trademarked (If it has the vertical lines that is otherwise it is just a bottle).

You must be registered to see the links

 

[polywog]

You can't copyright a generic car as you say but there are still elements that might be trademarked and outright remaking a model 1:1 in Daz is probably still copyright and/or trademark infringement. I'm not much a car guy but BMW has a very distinct grille that is part of their trademark. Or think of a Coke bottle. You can't trademark a bottle but the Coca Cola bottle is really distinct and thus trademarked (If it has the vertical lines that is otherwise it is just a bottle).

You must be registered to see the links

To be clear: Trademarks, Patents, & Copyrights are three VERY different things, with very different laws.
Your argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; Trademarks and patents do not apply to this discussion.
Patents and trademarks are not part of the DMCA which addresses only enforcement of copyrights.

If you receive a DMCA complaint about a patent or trademark, you should contact an attorney, and possibly sue the complainant for false allegations. Juries have awarded damages in such cases. It is a blatant abuse of the DMCA to make false claims. 80% of the claims received by Google are false claims.

As for trademarks.
Generic Daz characters are not patented or trademarked.

Bayer lost it's trademark for acetylsalicylic acid "Aspirin" because it became a household word.
Google lost it's trademark, because it became a household word. A verb meaning to search the internet: Google it.
Xerox successfully defended it's trademark, by advising clients not to refer to the process of photocopying as Xeroxing.

You must be registered to see the links

You suggest that copying the design of automobile parts 1:1 may infringe... this is False. Aftermarket automobile parts are quite common, and allowed despite the fact that the aftermarket auto parts directly compete commercially against the OEM manufacturer's sales. (Patents are not intended to prevent creative invention improvement and advancement of technology) If your version is BETTER* that the original... it does not infringe the patent. *better, is the most abstract of concepts.

aftermarket BMW Grille...

You must be registered to see the links

IBM paid millions of dollars to develop the PC their patents did not prevent others from competing with them.

Copyright: is the exclusive right given to the creator of a creative work to reproduce the work, usually for a limited time.
The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.

Not the idea itself. This is where most people are confused about copyright. It does not cover the concept it only covers the work itself. This means that I can make one just like it.

For example a publisher may sell cookbooks that contain recipes. You want to sell cookies made using those recipes, go for it. If your grandmother is a great cook, and you ask her to make up a cookie recipe for you from scratch... and off the top of her head, without looking at that cookbook, your grandmother comes up with a recipe of her own which is 98% identical to the recipe in the cookbook, her recipe does not infringe the copyright of the publisher. Grandma can publish her recipe

 

[joecoe]

First of all, if you use Daz renderes, how can anyone know what your Daz studio account is? Patreon account have no visible connection to Daz account if you don't want to.
So when someone sees renders, it is almost impossible to verify if the developer owns the used assets legally. I assume that if someone from DaZ contacted Patreon, Patreon has no right to disclose user information just because someone in DaZ thinks that the user may have used illegal assets to create renders.
Morally, it is definitely not right to use a pirate content, but I think the risk of getting into trouble based on game renders is close to zero

 

[GNVE]

To be clear: Trademarks, Patents, & Copyrights are three VERY different things, with very different laws.
Your argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; Trademarks and patents do not apply to this discussion.
Patents and trademarks are not part of the DMCA which addresses only enforcement of copyrights.

Patents are indeed pretty much irrelevant here but if you use trademarks in renders or if a 3D artist used a trademark in their model/texture the trademark holder can sue the person over trademark infringement.

If you receive a DMCA complaint about a patent or trademark, you should contact an attorney, and possibly sue the complainant for false allegations. Juries have awarded damages in such cases. It is a blatant abuse of the DMCA to make false claims. 80% of the claims received by Google are false claims.

I agree DMCA only applies to copyright so using it for a trademark infringement is improper and illegal even if I recall. But not getting a DMCA takedown notice is something different than not getting sued.

As for trademarks.
Generic Daz characters are not patented or trademarked.

True (though the underlying technology for G8 might be patented) but we where talking about cars in this case and before that candy bars which (often) have trademarked items on it.

Bayer lost it's trademark for acetylsalicylic acid "Aspirin" because it became a household word.
Google lost it's trademark, because it became a household word. A verb meaning to search the internet: Google it.
Xerox successfully defended it's trademark, by advising clients not to refer to the process of photocopying as Xeroxing.

You must be registered to see the links

You suggest that copying the design of automobile parts 1:1 may infringe... this is False. Aftermarket automobile parts are quite common, and allowed despite the fact that the aftermarket auto parts directly compete commercially against the OEM manufacturer's sales. (Patents are not intended to prevent creative invention improvement and advancement of technology) If your version is BETTER* that the original... it does not infringe the patent. *better, is the most abstract of concepts.

I was mostly talking about the car as a whole. Some parts might be trademarked like the logo on the car and as the complaint in the article showed the grille of a BMW. As for copyright copying the general shape is not infringement because a SUV is a general shape that all car manufactures use and thus generic and just an idea as you rightfully point out. But if you where to laserscan the car make a 3D model of it and then texture that model like the original it is quite clearly copyright infringement. But it is hard to determine where one becomes the other.

aftermarket BMW Grille...

You must be registered to see the links

As for aftermarket parts yes they may be quite common probably because a lot of parts cannot be copyrighted (not distinct enough, just functional etc) and there could be a number of other reasons as well, it could be licenced part, a part that closely resembles the original part but not enough to actually infringe the original, it could even be BMW who makes and sells the part under a different brand name (maybe using a lesser QC standard and/or using cheaper materials). (Again I don't know much about cars but it is quite common in other industries to do this).

IBM paid millions of dollars to develop the PC their patents did not prevent others from competing with them.

Copyright: is the exclusive right given to the creator of a creative work to reproduce the work, usually for a limited time.
The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.

Not the idea itself. This is where most people are confused about copyright. It does not cover the concept it only covers the work itself. This means that I can make one just like it.

You are correct you cannot copyright an idea but you can copyright the expressions of those ideas (if the expression is not to generic or small at least. there must be a minimal creative expression and it can't be a building block of a creative expression (e.g. simple dance move or musical note versus a choreography or composition)) So the idea would be a portrait of a women (and you can get (a lot) more specific than that) where the expression is the Mona Lisa. The first is not copyrightable and the second is (where it not that the portrait is in the public domain of course but you get what I mean.)

For example a publisher may sell cookbooks that contain recipes. You want to sell cookies made using those recipes, go for it. If your grandmother is a great cook, and you ask her to make up a cookie recipe for you from scratch... and off the top of her head, without looking at that cookbook, your grandmother comes up with a recipe of her own which is 98% identical to the recipe in the cookbook, her recipe does not infringe the copyright of the publisher. Grandma can publish her recipe

100% the same even. Two people can make an identical work if they make it independently of each other both works are copyrightable and neither infringe on the other.

But getting back to the case of Daz where we started. using illegally downloaded assets for your game will infringe copyrights of the creator of the asset since you show their original work even if you added creativity of your own. Their asset is not just an idea but the expression of that idea.

 

[polywog]

But if you where to laserscan the car make a 3D model of it and then texture that model like the original it is quite clearly copyright infringement.

You still don't get it? A likeness cannot be copyrighted. You can have plastic surgery done to make you look like Tom Cruise, and women will pay you to dance in your underwear at their bachelorette parties. You cannot coppyright the appearance / likeness / of a car, nor any other thing. Your copyright only applies to the art that you made.

You must be registered to see the links

you can make and sell car models all day long
you can make and sell pictures of the golden gate bridge, the statue of liberty, the i-Fell tower
pictures of celebrities having wardrobe malfunctions can make you a lot of money.
you make the picture the copyright is yours

 

[GNVE]

You still don't get it? A likeness cannot be copyrighted. You can have plastic surgery done to make you look like Tom Cruise, and women will pay you to dance in your underwear at their bachelorette parties. You cannot coppyright the appearance / likeness / of a car, nor any other thing. Your copyright only applies to the art that you made.

You must be registered to see the links

you can make and sell car models all day long
you can make and sell pictures of the golden gate bridge, the statue of liberty, the i-Fell tower
pictures of celebrities having wardrobe malfunctions can make you a lot of money.
you make the picture the copyright is yours

You must be registered to see the links

because the lighting is copyrighted but that is French copyright law.
Both the golden gate bridge and the statue of liberty would be public domain no matter what (older than the time limit and the US allows for panorama's).
You can't copyright/trandemark/patent a face or anything else in nature because there was no creativity there (US Law). (Though in some countries you have portrait rights you'd have to contend with (although this case would be newsworthy and in the clear I agree)).
After reading up on it yeah, you actually seem to be right on the cars not being protected by copyright (Though you might still have to deal with the trademarked elements)

In a report accompanying the Copyright Act, Congress explained that it did not intend copyright to protect industrial products that happen to have “aesthetically satisfying and valuable” shapes.20 Instead, only “physically or conceptually” severable elements could be protected by copyright.21 For example, if a chair has a carving on the back, the carving can be protected but the chair itself remains outside of the scope of copyright.22 This is because the carving can stand alone as a viable artistic creation even without the rest of the chair.

As for the 3D model yes the copyright on the picture is yours I contend that however you still infringed in the making of it and can be sued for that if I understand it correctly:

Copyright Violations. Competitors, consumers, counterfeiters and virtually anyone with access to a 3D printer (either at home or at a local print shop) is able to produce a tangible, usable product out of a digital design files (usually CAD files). CAD files are typically protected by copyright law and, for many business concerns, represent a highly valuable intellectual property asset.

In the meantime, to curb unauthorized use, if the object is protected by copyright, rights holders can make use of technological protection measures, the circumvention of which is expressly forbidden under the WIPO Copyright Treaty (Article 11). These measures make it possible, for example, to mark an object and its associated 3D print file with a unique identifier to monitor use.

 

[polywog]

As for the 3D model yes the copyright on the picture is yours I contend that however you still infringed in the making of it and can be sued for that if I understand it correctly:

You can sue anyone for anything at any time. I can file a suit against you alleging that you caused the sun not to rise last Thursday, which scared my cow and she refused to give milk. Doesn't mean I'd win, just sayin.