Tilesets ripped from commercial games - legal?
Numeron
my tileset and there seems to be an abundance of ripped pokemon, zelda
and other tilesets. It seems a bit dodgy to start with but even so
people are still asking for attribution which is just rediculous. Ive
done my best to research whether or not I can use these, but my grasp
on licensing and copywrite laws is sketchy at best. Is it legal for me
to use these keeping in mind that -
a) I'll need to modify what i take to suit the rest of my tiles so it
will all be derivative work.
b) My project is non commercial and not for profit.
-Numeron
Krice
wrote:
> Is it legal for me to use these keeping in mind that -
No it's not legal to use copyrighted (is that a proper word?)
graphics. This is even so with freeware games. Some people
have a weird idea that they can reuse graphics from freeware
games. No, it's not legal or ok.
The basic idea is not to use anything created by someone
else, unless you ask for permission from the author or
the author has a specific, clearly stated release of the
tileset for free use.
konijn_
wrote:
Legal : no.
What will happen when they catch you ? They will send you a cease and
desist, in which you case you should cease and desist aka stop using
those tiles. Nobody will sue you into oblivion since there is no
material damage ( its non-profit ).
PernBand had to stop using references to Pern , DoomRL seems to be
allowed to live on.
T.
>
> -Numeron
Auric__
IANAL, but the copyright owner certainly *can* sue over infringement,
regardless of whether or not the person(s) doing the infringing is making
any money. The reasoning there is that, even if the infringer isn't making
money, it's (potentially) reducing profits the owner might've otherwise
made. Or something like that.
Such a lawsuit would have the express purpose of forcing the infringer to
do one of two things: settle with the copyright owner -- meaning paying for
their infringing use -- or actually going to court and proving that they
are using the copyrighted materials legally, a highly unlikely event.
> PernBand had to stop using references to Pern , DoomRL seems to be
> allowed to live on.
The difference there might be that Doom has been open-sourced, while Pern
has not (but that doesn't consider other things, like trademarks and such).
The only place that *I* would feel anywhere near comfortable using
copyrighted materials without permission would be a *tiny* parody of some
sort (since parody is legally protected) but even then I'd be far more
comfortable making my own stuff.
--
Blood stains on my hands and I don't know where I've been.
Sherm Pendley
> Ive been doing lots of snooping around for bits and pieces to add to
> my tileset and there seems to be an abundance of ripped pokemon, zelda
> and other tilesets. It seems a bit dodgy to start with
Actually, it's pretty straightforward. You need the copyright owner's
permission to use, or to create a derived work from copyrighted tiles.
> done my best to research whether or not I can use these, but my grasp
> on licensing and copywrite laws is sketchy at best. Is it legal for me
> to use these keeping in mind that -
No.
> a) I'll need to modify what i take to suit the rest of my tiles so it
> will all be derivative work.
You need the copyright owner's permission to create a derived work.
> b) My project is non commercial and not for profit.
Irrelevant.
sherm--
--
Sherm Pendley
<http://camelbones.sourceforge.net>
Cocoa Developer
David Damerell
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:40:48 GMT, konijn_ wrote:
>>PernBand had to stop using references to Pern , DoomRL seems to be
>>allowed to live on.
>The difference there might be that Doom has been open-sourced, while Pern
>has not (but that doesn't consider other things, like trademarks and such).
Doom's engine is free, but its content is not - including the sounds and
music used in DoomRL. As far as I can make out it's simply that id think
it's pretty cool and are turning a blind eye.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Monday, October.
Tomorrow will be Tuesday, October.
Martin Read
>IANAL, but the copyright owner certainly *can* sue over infringement,
>regardless of whether or not the person(s) doing the infringing is making
>any money. The reasoning there is that, even if the infringer isn't making
>money, it's (potentially) reducing profits the owner might've otherwise
>made. Or something like that.
If you're not making any money, they're going to start with a C&D letter
unless they are the kind of crazy that authors(' estates) might be but
corporations seldom are.
--
\_\/_/ turbulence is certainty turbulence is friction between you and me
\ / every time we try to impose order we create chaos
\/ -- Killing Joke, "Mathematics of Chaos"
Martin Read
>If you're not making any money, they're going to start with a C&D letter
>unless they are the kind of crazy that authors(' estates) might be but
>corporations seldom are.
Replying to myself to add:
And if they've trademarked the material you ripped off (some video game
characters' likenesses are trademarked), they _have_ to care even if you
aren't making money, lest their trademarks become void due to
nonenforcement.
Krice
> The reasoning there is that, even if the infringer isn't making
> money, it's (potentially) reducing profits the owner might've
> otherwise made. Or something like that.
Actually, even if you don't make money a game looks always
nice in your CV. It may open an opportunity to job and so
you benefit from other's work.
konijn_
> Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >If you're not making any money, they're going to start with a C&D letter
> >unless they are the kind of crazy that authors(' estates) might be but
> >corporations seldom are.
>
> Replying to myself to add:
>
> And if they've trademarked the material you ripped off (some video game
> characters' likenesses are trademarked), they _have_ to care even if you
> aren't making money, lest their trademarks become void due to
> nonenforcement.
Good point, that is the case with most of the WH40K stuff by the way.
T.
Numeron
> On Oct 25, 1:23 pm, Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > >If you're not making any money, they're going to start with a C&D letter
> > >unless they are the kind of crazy that authors(' estates) might be but
> > >corporations seldom are.
>
> > Replying to myself to add:
>
> > And if they've trademarked the material you ripped off (some video game
> > characters' likenesses are trademarked), they _have_ to care even if you
> > aren't making money, lest their trademarks become void due to
> > nonenforcement.
>
> Good point, that is the case with most of the WH40K stuff by the way.
Well for me this isnt the case - Im interested in some floor tiles and
a plant, not anything that anyone but the most keen obsever of the
origional game would notice. Especially since on all of these I need
to rearrange the pallette, reduce the colour count, and fix it up a
bit to look more like the rest of my tiles.
My work does not fall into this category, but reading the posts so far
has made me wonder - what about fan made works and content? Is that
illegal too, only tolerated because its counter productive to crack
down on it? DoomRL aaalmost fits into this category but not quite
since it comes in the same category as the origional product? I assume
that explicitly saying that you do not own the idea you are working
with doesnt make a real difference (except that claiming it as your
own will probably get them on you faster)?
-Numeron
Numeron
> Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Ive been doing lots of snooping around for bits and pieces to add to
> > my tileset and there seems to be an abundance of ripped pokemon, zelda
> > and other tilesets. It seems a bit dodgy to start with
>
> Actually, it's pretty straightforward. You need the copyright owner's
> permission to use, or to create a derived work from copyrighted tiles.
>
> > done my best to research whether or not I can use these, but my grasp
> > on licensing and copywrite laws is sketchy at best. Is it legal for me
> > to use these keeping in mind that -
>
> No.
>
> > a) I'll need to modify what i take to suit the rest of my tiles so it
> > will all be derivative work.
>
> You need the copyright owner's permission to create a derived work.
>
> > b) My project is non commercial and not for profit.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> sherm--
I think this is what threw me:
http://alistairsspriteshowcase.webs.com/
This person has ripped sprites out of a pokemon game, and has licensed
them creative commons.
-Numeron
Wally the Grey
> Numeron<irunsofastine...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ive been doing lots of snooping around for bits and pieces to add to
>> my tileset and there seems to be an abundance of ripped pokemon, zelda
>> and other tilesets. It seems a bit dodgy to start with
>
> Actually, it's pretty straightforward. You need the copyright owner's
> permission to use, or to create a derived work from copyrighted tiles.
Except when it's fair use.
And it just might be. The tiles are a tiny fraction of the copyrighted
game they were originally used in, and presumably do not include the
"heart of the work", which for a game would be the core gameplay
elements, story elements, and characters (whereas he mentioned floor
tiles and a plant). So one of the four fair use factors, proportion of
the work, seems to be good here.
The use described in this thread is not going to affect the market for
the copyrighted game; that's another fair use factor.
The character of the use is noncommercial, but not educational, parody,
or criticism so that one's equivocal.
And the character of the original work is fictional, which weighs
against fair use.
Two for, one equivocal, one against. I'd say in a court it could go
either way.
The problem is that it's expensive to fight it for a *chance* of the use
being found fair, so people generally just cave at the first sign of a
C&D from a copyright holder. What's fair use in theory seems to get
suppressed all too often in practice.
The system is broken.
OP: I recommend just creating your own tiles from scratch.
Wally the Grey
> "Auric__"<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>> IANAL, but the copyright owner certainly *can* sue over infringement,
>> regardless of whether or not the person(s) doing the infringing is making
>> any money. The reasoning there is that, even if the infringer isn't making
>> money, it's (potentially) reducing profits the owner might've otherwise
>> made. Or something like that.
>
> If you're not making any money, they're going to start with a C&D letter
> unless they are the kind of crazy that authors(' estates) might be but
> corporations seldom are.
With one noteworthy exception: the corporation known as Righthaven. They
seem to sue first and send C&Ds and DMCA takedowns later.
Numeron
wrote:
Actually, Ive been doing some more looking into this persons
activities, and various forum threads seem to indicate they are
origional work tiles which have been purposely made in the same style
as the game they emulate. However, they come dangerously close to it
in parts - saw a comparison pic of his trees vs pokemon game trees...
I dont know. Perhaps its best to just leave them be even so.
-Numeron
Auric__
Maybe, but getting sued for it doesn't:
Jan 2010 Released GenericHack. Most downloaded game of the year.
Feb 2010 Sued in federal court for copyright infringement. Lost my ass.
--
Crappy old OSes have value in the basically negative sense that
changing to new ones makes us wish we'd never been born.
-- Neal Stephenson
Ray
> The character of the use is noncommercial, but not educational, parody,
> or criticism so that one's equivocal.
I'm not a lawyer, but in the US at least, That's not going to be
equivocal. That's going to be negative. Being noncommercial
doesn't make any difference at all on this point; fair use allows
people who are teaching, parodizing, or criticizing a work to
quote from it at some length. Commercial or not doesn't affect
whether you're doing one of these "protected" activities at all.
It is the case that a noncommercial work is less likely to inflict
financial damages or profit by the work of the original author, so
it can help you prove some of the *other* points. But not this one.
> And the character of the original work is fictional, which weighs
> against fair use.
Fair use of nonfiction contributes to spreading truth; forcing each
news organization to paraphrase the last quickly causes the quality
of the news reported to degenerate, and effectively forbids a news
organization from carrying a story at all if it didn't have a reporter
at the scene. Society as a whole is better off if nonfiction can be
subject to fair use. With fiction works, you can't make this argument
in favor of fair use.
> Two for, one equivocal, one against. I'd say in a court it could go
> either way.
I'd say in the current legislative climate, you'd probably lose
your butt. Even if you spent twice as much on legal representation
as the people suing you.
Bear
konijn_
> I'd say in the current legislative climate, you'd probably lose
> your butt. Even if you spent twice as much on legal representation
> as the people suing you.
>
> Bear
No, damages are calculated for the most part on the profit made. If
its a non-profit game, the damages cannot be large. Unless of course
your butt is worthless, in that case ..
T.
Sherm Pendley
> <snip>
>> I'd say in the current legislative climate, you'd probably lose
>> your butt. Even if you spent twice as much on legal representation
>> as the people suing you.
>
> No, damages are calculated for the most part on the profit made.
Not true - damages are based on what's *lost* by the copyright owner,
not by what's gained by the infringer. That's how the RIAA, for example,
calculates those multi-million-dollar lawsuits against people who made
nothing by sharing their MP3 collections - they count every download
as a lost sale.
David Damerell
>Well for me this isnt the case - Im interested in some floor tiles and
>a plant, not anything that anyone but the most keen obsever of the
>origional game would notice. Especially since on all of these I need
>to rearrange the pallette, reduce the colour count, and fix it up a
>bit to look more like the rest of my tiles.
In that case, who's going to know? If I were you I'd go for it.
>My work does not fall into this category, but reading the posts so far
>has made me wonder - what about fan made works and content?
No different. Yes, copyright law is an ass.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Tuesday, October.
Tomorrow will be Wednesday, October.
konijn_
> konijn_ <kon...@gmail.com> writes:
> > <snip>
> >> I'd say in the current legislative climate, you'd probably lose
> >> your butt. Even if you spent twice as much on legal representation
> >> as the people suing you.
>
> > No, damages are calculated for the most part on the profit made.
>
> Not true - damages are based on what's *lost* by the copyright owner,
> not by what's gained by the infringer. That's how the RIAA, for example,
> calculates those multi-million-dollar lawsuits against people who made
> nothing by sharing their MP3 collections - they count every download
> as a lost sale.
Yes, now should me one (1) case where that amount got rewarded, the
RIAA can calculate all day for all the justice system cares.
Also, I am pretty sure the RIAA logic would only go if the actual
Zelda game would be ripped and redistributed, not just the sprites.
T.
Jeff Lait
wrote:
>
> Well for me this isnt the case - Im interested in some floor tiles and
> a plant, not anything that anyone but the most keen obsever of the
> origional game would notice. Especially since on all of these I need
> to rearrange the pallette, reduce the colour count, and fix it up a
> bit to look more like the rest of my tiles.
If the gain is so small, why take the risk? Let us say you do this.
You convert the tiles, and no one ever notices. But, unfortunately,
you will know. And worry about it. It will always be hanging over
your head. Do you want to lose sleep at night over some terrain
tiles?
If we are talking about a few ground tiles and plants, the choice is
obvious, IMHO. Make your own tiles or find a CC source. (The latter,
of course, is still muddied by never being entirely sure if your CC
source was themselves entirely original, but at some point we have to
stop worrying)
If you are going to rip off tiles from commercial games, it should be
done explicitly and unabashedly. Ie, provide proper credit for the
tiles! Do not leave the impression you created them. And don't be
surprised if you get a C&D. Doing this is engaging in a form of civil
disobedience - and part of true civil disobedience is accepting the
consequences of refusing to obey what you see as an unjust law.
> My work does not fall into this category, but reading the posts so far
> has made me wonder - what about fan made works and content? Is that
> illegal too, only tolerated because its counter productive to crack
> down on it?
Sadly, they are largely illegal. In my opinion, this is something
horribly flawed with our current system. Thankfully most creators are
wise enough to recognize this.
> DoomRL aaalmost fits into this category but not quite
> since it comes in the same category as the origional product? I assume
> that explicitly saying that you do not own the idea you are working
> with doesnt make a real difference (except that claiming it as your
> own will probably get them on you faster)?
For fan work, I don't think the law is the correct guide. Instead
morality should be. Thus, one should:
A) Explicitly attribute your source/inspiration, if not clear.
B) Make it clear that it is not official.
C) Avoid commercial exploitation.
But those are just my own opinions. The legal framework is grey to
black.
An interesting consequence of the CC movement has been what seems a
growing consensus that there should be exemptions carved, not just
along traditional fair-use lines, but along some form of "non-
commercial" lines. For example, Canada's Bill C-32, the latest
attempt at sneaking DMCA in, has some seemingly positive elements such
as:
------
29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to
use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has
been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the
creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright
subsists and for the individual — or, with the individ- ual’s
authorization, a member of their household — to use the new work or
other subject-matter or to authorize an intermediary to disseminate
it, if
(a) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or
other subject-matter is done solely for non-commercial purposes;
(b) the source — and, if given in the source, the name of the author,
performer, maker or broadcaster — of the existing work or other
subject-matter or copy of it are mentioned, if it is reasonable in the
circumstances to do so;
(c) the individual had reasonable grounds to believe that the existing
work or other subject-matter or copy of it, as the case may be, was
not infringing copyright; and
(d) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or
other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect,
financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation
of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on
an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or
other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.
------
Obvious Disclaimer: The above is not yet law. It likely doesn't mean
what you think it means, and even if it did, wouldn't necessarily
continue to mean that when it gets in the hands of some skilled
lawyers.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Krice
wrote:
> No different. Yes, copyright law is an ass.
You'll understand copyright much better if you ever
made something original and it possibly took hours of
work. I think creative work is what some young people
should try to do, to understand why copyright law exists
in the first place.
Pikalek
hmmm, it seems to me that your last statements change the terrain
from:
'can I safely use sprites that someone ripped from other
sources' [paraphrased]
to:
'can I safely use sprites that some claims are inspired by other
sources & under creative commons' [paraphrased]
IANAL, however, I would think that since the artist is claiming the CC
license, you might have a little bit of leeway. You could still get
hit w/ a C&D, but as long as you can demonstrate that you didn't have
reason to believe that the the material in question was 'stolen', you
might be okay. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a sequence of
search terms to bring up any related case law to support or refute my
theory.
Numeron
> On Oct 25, 7:33 pm, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com>
> > activities, and various forum threads seem to indicate they are
> > origional work tiles which have been purposely made in the same style
> > as the game they emulate. However, they come dangerously close to it
> > in parts - saw a comparison pic of his trees vs pokemon game trees...
> > I dont know. Perhaps its best to just leave them be even so.
>
> > -Numeron
>
> hmmm, it seems to me that your last statements change the terrain
> from:
> 'can I safely use sprites that someone ripped from other
> sources' [paraphrased]
> to:
> 'can I safely use sprites that some claims are inspired by other
> sources & under creative commons' [paraphrased]
>
> IANAL, however, I would think that since the artist is claiming the CC
> license, you might have a little bit of leeway. You could still get
> hit w/ a C&D, but as long as you can demonstrate that you didn't have
> reason to believe that the the material in question was 'stolen', you
> might be okay. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a sequence of
> search terms to bring up any related case law to support or refute my
> theory.
This is true. I consider the following:
1) The tiles I will use, despite their to-the-point-of-illigality
similarity to other non-licensed artwork, are still under CC, and I
believe them to be origional.
2) Whatever company made the pokemon games is not going to lose any
money due to my game because:
2b) My game does not and will not reference that franchise in any
way, so there will be no loss of profit through direct diversion of
attention of their fanbase.
2a) I am specifically only using tiles which do not carry the
distinctive look and feel of the games of the franchise (this is on
purpose, I dont particularly think that look works for me) and beyond
this am modifying them to the point where even avid pokemon fans would
probably not notice them mixed up in all my other origional tiles.
3) I wont lose any sleep over any of it due to number 2.
4) They are a large company so I care less - I would care if these
were the tiles of an independant artist/developer, or I didnt have 2a.
5) If I get a cease and desist then I will cease and desist and that
will be the end of it. I believe that a combination of 1 and 2 will
certainly produce a C&D long before any attempt to make back all the
profits they havent lost due to my game.
I think I will use them.
-Numeron
Numeron
If the "you" here is refering to me, I certainly have put hundreds of
hours into code and graphics - all of which I am proud to consider
free for anyone to use in any way except impose restrictions which
prevents this free use. Not all of it is rubbish either - the tiles
from my two Domination 7drls for example I think are pretty neat. I
like to think of it as how I pay for all the free bits and pieces ive
picked up and used over the years.
-Numeron
Krice
wrote:
> the tiles
> from my two Domination 7drls for example I think are pretty neat.
Not really.
> I like to think of it as how I pay for all the free bits and
> pieces ive picked up and used over the years.
It doesn't work that way. The author of the original art you
stole doesn't get anything from you (unless you pay him cash
which is unlikely). It's always like this, people who steal
things try to reason it.
konijn_
I think you are confusing author and copyright owner. Rest assured the
author is payed for his 9 to 5 job.
T.