First of, I approve the Kickstarter projects out there even I don't fund them myself, so no hate about them.
But I have a question that came to my mind. I will try to explain with an example:
Let's say a user in DeviantArt, a site about artists posting their arts,photos,videos,music,etc., want from an artist a fanart, a Street Fighter fanart for example. The artist will ask from the user a small amount of money to create the artwork for him. So the user do so and later if the user want also, the artist can show the artwork to the other users of the site for free. Been a free artwork, the company that owns the copyrights of this game don't bother to tell him to delete this artwork [and the other thouthands similars artworks also].
So....Can the same example above applied to Kickstarter projects?
Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
I mean, the two example I just wrote are the same, but I know this is strange....for me anyway.
I am not sure about the legal stuff, but as far as I know, asking for money to make fan art is illegal. Fan art is usually covered under the fair use agreements, which prohibit you from making money off of it. Selling fan art is a different kettle of fish, though.
In both your examples, it would be illegal. At least as far as I know. I could very well be wrong, mind.
Jarl: I am not sure about the legal stuff, but as far as I know, asking for money to make fan art is illegal. Fan art is usually covered under the fair use agreements, which prohibit you from making money off of it. Selling fan art is a different kettle of fish, though.
In both your examples, it would be illegal. At least as far as I know. I could very well be wrong, mind.
I'm not an expert on this either but I am not sure about this assessment.
What's the difference between commissioning fan art and commissioning a professional freelance artist to draw something for you he worked on but me not necessarily have the right to?
Good example: At many conventions that have comic book artists present that often charge people for personalized drawings usually depicting comic characters they don't own themselves. As far as I know they are allowed to do this... though I suppose maybe they have permission from the publishers that own the characters?
SweetShark: Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
It's Bethesda/Zenimax who current hold the IP on Fallout.
... and yes, they could do far more than make a complaint. The could have the project kicked off kickstarter, they could have the project served with a cease and desist order, they could even go through the courts and take a chunk of the project's kickstarter money.
This is why you do not intentionally fuck with IP holders.
Also... the fan art thing? IP holders can take you to task for that as well if you start making any coin from it and they catch you.
Fappy: Good example: At many conventions that have comic book artists present that often charge people for personalized drawings usually depicting comic characters they don't own themselves. As far as I know they are allowed to do this... though I suppose maybe they have permission from the publishers that own the characters?
Cariacature falls under the same provisions as satire, legally speaking.
Fappy: Good example: At many conventions that have comic book artists present that often charge people for personalized drawings usually depicting comic characters they don't own themselves. As far as I know they are allowed to do this... though I suppose maybe they have permission from the publishers that own the characters?
Cariacature falls under the same provisions as satire, legally speaking.
So I guess this kind of thing is mostly determined by how the transaction is handled? As in: going up to a person who will draw you something for money is okay, but asking someone in an open market setting (the internet) is not? Am I understanding this correctly or am I just a moron? XP
Jarl: I am not sure about the legal stuff, but as far as I know, asking for money to make fan art is illegal. Fan art is usually covered under the fair use agreements, which prohibit you from making money off of it. Selling fan art is a different kettle of fish, though.
In both your examples, it would be illegal. At least as far as I know. I could very well be wrong, mind.
I'm not an expert on this either but I am not sure about this assessment. What's the difference between commissioning fan art and commissioning a professional freelance artist to draw something for you he worked on but me not necessarily have the right to?
Good example: At many conventions that have comic book artists present that often charge people for personalized drawings usually depicting comic characters they don't own themselves. As far as I know they are allowed to do this... though I suppose maybe they have permission from the publishers that own the characters?
Yes, that I am trying to understand. It is the same really.
How I understand it is this, You can pay for labor cost which would be the artist drawing the pic of whatever you ask. The problem is when you come to sell the pic after it is finished in hopes of making a profit off pic. Your not paying for labor, it is already done and instead making money off the IP as the only reason someone would buy it is recognizing the IP.
Edit: I isn't clear however is I believe the man who made Ghost Rider was nailed for this and sued. IP are very vague for a reason to allow IP holders to weasel around, it probably goes both way, just ave to figure out how.
Fappy: Good example: At many conventions that have comic book artists present that often charge people for personalized drawings usually depicting comic characters they don't own themselves. As far as I know they are allowed to do this... though I suppose maybe they have permission from the publishers that own the characters?
Cariacature falls under the same provisions as satire, legally speaking.
So I guess this kind of thing is mostly determined by how the transaction is handled? As in: going up to a person who will draw you something for money is okay, but asking someone in an open market setting (the internet) is not? Am I understanding this correctly or am I just a moron? XP
It's more or less a legal sidestep... you're not drawing, for example, Spiderman you're drawing Con Goer 13456 in a Spiderman costume and you've got to do it in a why that makes it identifiable as that person.
Suffice to say that when it comes to cariacature and satire copyright laws don't work the same as they normally do.
If, however, you're talking of comic artists just banging off pics of comic characters... that they do with permission.
ThePuzzldPirate: How I understand it is this, You can pay for labor cost which would be the artist drawing the pic of whatever you ask. The problem is when you come to sell the pic after it is finished in hopes of making a profit off pic. Your not paying for labor, it is already done and instead making money off the IP as the only reason someone would buy it is recognizing the IP.
That why I said after someone complete a Kickstarter project, to have it for free to the others peoples. The only money the creators would get are the funds for the Kickstarter they started. Also it is the creators idea to create a game for IP, not the other that will fund this project.
ThePuzzldPirate: Edit: I isn't clear however is I believe the man who made Ghost Rider was nailed for this and sued. IP are very vague for a reason to allow IP holders to weasel around, it probably goes both way, just ave to figure out how.
IP law is very skewed towards the publisher.
Especially if you're on a Work For Hire contract... which was originally to protect established IPs being worked on my new creative staff (so the new people couldn't claim a cut of the rights) but has become so that essentially ANY work you do that is similar in nature to the work you do while under that contract is automatically the property of the person/company who hired you, including stuff you did in your free time.
ThePuzzldPirate: How I understand it is this, You can pay for labor cost which would be the artist drawing the pic of whatever you ask. The problem is when you come to sell the pic after it is finished in hopes of making a profit off pic. Your not paying for labor, it is already done and instead making money off the IP as the only reason someone would buy it is recognizing the IP.
That why I said after someone complete a Kickstarter project, to have it for free to the others peoples. The only money the creators would get are the funds for the Kickstarter they started. Also it is the creators idea to create a game for IP, not the other that will fund this project.
The problem I see with this however is you have to ask money in kickstarter therefore your asking people to give you money so you can make it, essentially making money off the IP. They would have to come to you, not the other way around. The easiest way to avoid any issues is just pull Gameloft method of ripping off games.
ThePuzzldPirate: Edit: I isn't clear however is I believe the man who made Ghost Rider was nailed for this and sued. IP are very vague for a reason to allow IP holders to weasel around, it probably goes both way, just ave to figure out how.
IP law is very skewed towards the publisher.
Especially if you're on a Work For Hire contract... which was originally to protect established IPs being worked on my new creative staff (so the new people couldn't claim a cut of the rights) but has become so that essentially ANY work you do that is similar in nature to the work you do while under that contract is automatically the property of the person/company who hired you, including stuff you did in your free time.
So wait, a publisher can make a contract with someone that if he clearly create something he owns but "somehow" have similarities with one of the publisher's IP, can sue you?
Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
If you're distributing someone else's IP, even freely, you're infringing on their copyrights (and trademark, in the case of Fallout).
You could easily finance a Fallout clone, but you'd have to call it something else and not reference areas of characters from previous Fallout games.
ThePuzzldPirate: How I understand it is this, You can pay for labor cost which would be the artist drawing the pic of whatever you ask. The problem is when you come to sell the pic after it is finished in hopes of making a profit off pic. Your not paying for labor, it is already done and instead making money off the IP as the only reason someone would buy it is recognizing the IP.
That why I said after someone complete a Kickstarter project, to have it for free to the others peoples. The only money the creators would get are the funds for the Kickstarter they started. Also it is the creators idea to create a game for IP, not the other that will fund this project.
The problem I see with this however is you have to ask money in kickstarter therefore your asking people to give you money so you can make it, essentially making money off the IP. They would have to come to you, not the other way around. The easiest way to avoid any issues is just pull Gameloft method of ripping off games.
But again as you said, Gameloft clearly ripping off games from other companies. Can't the companies sue them just for that?
Anyway, I thought of something else also: What about the mods tham many users create for free for PC Videogames. It is also wrong? What if someone want to start a Kickstarter just to create a Star Wars Mod for Mass Effect 3 videogame [if possiple of course]?
ThePuzzldPirate: Edit: I isn't clear however is I believe the man who made Ghost Rider was nailed for this and sued. IP are very vague for a reason to allow IP holders to weasel around, it probably goes both way, just ave to figure out how.
IP law is very skewed towards the publisher.
Especially if you're on a Work For Hire contract... which was originally to protect established IPs being worked on my new creative staff (so the new people couldn't claim a cut of the rights) but has become so that essentially ANY work you do that is similar in nature to the work you do while under that contract is automatically the property of the person/company who hired you, including stuff you did in your free time.
So wait, a publisher can make a contract with someone that if he clearly create something he owns but "somehow" have similarities with one of the publisher's IP, can sue you?
Nonono... I mean under Work For Hire contracts a publisher can lay claim to ALL of an illustrators work done during the time of the contract. They don't usually push it that far but there have been some furious legal shitfights over IPs a freelance artist has developed privately while doing contract work at the same time... You'd probably be surprised how many comic book characters ended up as corporate property that way.
Oh yeah, and Work for Hire is the standard contract type in most entertainment industries.
That why I said after someone complete a Kickstarter project, to have it for free to the others peoples. The only money the creators would get are the funds for the Kickstarter they started. Also it is the creators idea to create a game for IP, not the other that will fund this project.
The problem I see with this however is you have to ask money in kickstarter therefore your asking people to give you money so you can make it, essentially making money off the IP. They would have to come to you, not the other way around. The easiest way to avoid any issues is just pull Gameloft method of ripping off games.
But again as you said, Gameloft clearly ripping off games from other companies. Can't the companies sue them just for that?
Anyway, I thought of something else also: What about the mods tham many users create for free for PC Videogames. It is also wrong? What if someone want to start a Kickstarter just to create a Star Wars Mod for Mass Effect 3 videogame [if possiple of course]?
Your able to make games very close to fallout that plays/looks/feel like Fallout. While they own Fallout IP, they do not own the setting which would be post apocalypse. As long as you don't use things specific to that IP like characters or places(Vaults would be a specific example, call them shelters and your safe,) and your perfectly fine.
Anyway, I apologize for my bad grammar through this, keyboard is hampering my already bad grammar XD.
Especially if you're on a Work For Hire contract... which was originally to protect established IPs being worked on my new creative staff (so the new people couldn't claim a cut of the rights) but has become so that essentially ANY work you do that is similar in nature to the work you do while under that contract is automatically the property of the person/company who hired you, including stuff you did in your free time.
So wait, a publisher can make a contract with someone that if he clearly create something he owns but "somehow" have similarities with one of the publisher's IP, can sue you?
Nonono... I mean under Work For Hire contracts a publisher can lay claim to ALL of an illustrators work done during the time of the contract. They don't usually push it that far but there have been some furious legal shitfights over IPs a freelance artist has developed privately while doing contract work at the same time... You'd probably be surprised how many comic book characters ended up as corporate property that way.
I see. That mean that the company that hired you, can easily say to you that need your works even it is your personal work that is for private only [or for some other project you have in the future.]
SweetShark: What about the mods tham many users create for free for PC Videogames. It is also wrong? What if someone want to start a Kickstarter just to create a Star Wars Mod for Mass Effect 3 videogame [if possiple of course]?
IP owners have been known to have mod projects slapped with Cease and Desist orders.
Also... don't ever bother asking for money for a mod project. You don't want that much hatemail.
Plus, when you're doing something with someone else's IP and don't have permission, never ask for funding from the public because asking for money puts the chances that someone is going to inform the IP holder through the roof.
SweetShark: I see. That mean that the company that hired you, can easily say to you that need your works even it is your personal work that is for private only [or for some other project you have in the future.]
In a nutshell, yes.
At least that's how it works in... Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
SweetShark: I see. That mean that the company that hired you, can easily say to you that need your works even it is your personal work that is for private only [or for some other project you have in the future.]
In a nutshell, yes.
At least that's how it works in... Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
Wow....and they are ok with that? Of course I can imagine the company doesn't pay "extra" cash for your private work that they want to use, am I right?
SweetShark: I see. That mean that the company that hired you, can easily say to you that need your works even it is your personal work that is for private only [or for some other project you have in the future.]
In a nutshell, yes.
At least that's how it works in... Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
Wow....and they are ok with that? Of course I can imagine the company doesn't pay "extra" cash for your private work that they want to use, am I right?
Once they legally own it they don't have to pay you a thing.
At least that's how it works in... Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
Wow....and they are ok with that? Of course I can imagine the company doesn't pay "extra" cash for your private work that they want to use, am I right?
Once they legally own it they don't have to pay you a thing.
Wow....and they are ok with that? Of course I can imagine the company doesn't pay "extra" cash for your private work that they want to use, am I right?
Once they legally own it they don't have to pay you a thing.
I hope no all companies are like this....
Nearly all companies are like that, even schools typically make professors sign equivalent contracts.
Once they legally own it they don't have to pay you a thing.
I hope no all companies are like this....
Nearly all companies are like that, even schools typically make professors sign equivalent contracts.
The companies check your personal works that have nothing to do with the work you singed for? And then if they want can take your private work from you? I think this is too much to be so true.
SweetShark: The companies check your personal works that have nothing to do with the work you singed for? And then if they want can take your private work from you? I think this is too much to be so true.
They usually don't search for your person work but if you start making a lot of money or competing with them they can claim your work as their property. This does not always apply to any work you do, usually just competing works or works in the same field. There are also ways around this but they involve giving up your work, typically making it open source and not publishing it under your name.
Nearly all companies are like that, even schools typically make professors sign equivalent contracts.
The companies check your personal works that have nothing to do with the work you singed for? And then if they want can take your private work from you? I think this is too much to be so true.
Sort of, work for hire is an interesting area in law right now. Companies cannot for example say that "anything you create while an employee counts as a work for hire" because there is a limit as what can be called a work for hire. Likewise if you are an employee working for a company, using company resources within the scope of your job's description on company time anything you create is owned by the company even if it isn't called a work for hire in your contract.
Normally works for hire are used when dealing with consultants, and just to be safe as not all creative works can be counted as works for hire most contracts also include a clause that as soon as the work is created ownership of the copyright is transferred to the company. Now this can include work that is not directly related to what you were originally working on depending on how the contract was worded, but the scope cannot be so broad as to be considered unconscionable by a court of law as this can cause the contract to lose force, but this has no strict definition so don't assume that it will apply.
SweetShark: First of, I approve the Kickstarter projects out there even I don't fund them myself, so no hate about them.
But I have a question that came to my mind. I will try to explain with an example:
Let's say a user in DeviantArt, a site about artists posting their arts,photos,videos,music,etc., want from an artist a fanart, a Street Fighter fanart for example. The artist will ask from the user a small amount of money to create the artwork for him. So the user do so and later if the user want also, the artist can show the artwork to the other users of the site for free. Been a free artwork, the company that owns the copyrights of this game don't bother to tell him to delete this artwork [and the other thouthands similars artworks also].
So....Can the same example above applied to Kickstarter projects?
Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
I mean, the two example I just wrote are the same, but I know this is strange....for me anyway.
I am wrong to think like that?
In both cases there would be copyright infringement. Most companies can't actually be bothered to persecute anybody who makes 10 bucks with a fanart but with more major things like making an entire videogame, they will usually threaten the developers with legal action until they desist. They will still threaten you even if the game is non profit.
Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
Yes they can, and will, make a complaint and have that game shut down.
Kickstarter doesn't bypass copyright law and Fallout belongs to Bathesda so no one will be making another one of those.
Everything Fallout is Bathesda's so it doesn't matter if someone makes it and gives it away for free it's still breaking copyright law and Bath's team of penguins .. er .. law team, will be all over it like a rash.
No one can make a game that is owned by someone else whether it be under Kickstarter or anything else without the owner of that IP's permission .... which Bathesda will never give.
The basic rule is that the artist owns the work. In cases of work for hire it depends on the specific agreement. It's possible to make an agreement where the financer owns the work, and one where the artist owns it and can resell it to others. In the case of kickstarter the artists usually owns the work when it's done.
Fan art is normally thought of as plagiarism or derived works. It generally isn't allowed but the owners of the original work is of course free to allow it as they see fit, which is why fanart can sometimes exist. Exactly what goes depends on the whims of the owner. Thats why fanart is often allowed on a non-commercial basis only.
Some countries have copyright laws where the artist always have the artistic rights, and can't trade them away. Only the commercial rights can be given away. But that gets tricky in some aspects, especially when it is unclear who the actual artist is, for instance in cases where the work is the combined effort of many people.
Well it's iffy business this copyright/trademark stuff, that fan art can usually be sold simply because they don't make the big bucks that would rub owners the wrong way.
But when you push it into a whole game... then they will not be looking the other way, trust me there were many fan atemts at creating sequels of their beloved games and they either stayed under the radar or got burned to the ground legally. Hell they even step on modders if they are doing their shit too well.
Mr.K.: Well it's iffy business this copyright/trademark stuff, that fan art can usually be sold simply because they don't make the big bucks that would rub owners the wrong way.
But when you push it into a whole game... then they will not be looking the other way, trust me there were many fan atemts at creating sequels of their beloved games and they either stayed under the radar or got burned to the ground legally. Hell they even step on modders if they are doing their shit too well.
That remind me, Blizzard done the same with the Fan-MMO for Starcraft project that other created, am I right?
First of, I approve the Kickstarter projects out there even I don't fund them myself, so no hate about them.
But I have a question that came to my mind. I will try to explain with an example:
Let's say a user in DeviantArt, a site about artists posting their arts,photos,videos,music,etc., want from an artist a fanart, a Street Fighter fanart for example.
The artist will ask from the user a small amount of money to create the artwork for him. So the user do so and later if the user want also, the artist can show the artwork to the other users of the site for free.
Been a free artwork, the company that owns the copyrights of this game don't bother to tell him to delete this artwork [and the other thouthands similars artworks also].
So....Can the same example above applied to Kickstarter projects?
Let's say a Kickstarter want to create a new Fallout game like the old one [btw, I don't mean the new Wasteland game], and some users pay to be created, and then have this game for free to the other users that didn't payed......Can the company that have the copyrights of the Fallout series make a complaint about this game?
I mean, the two example I just wrote are the same, but I know this is strange....for me anyway.
I am wrong to think like that?