5 ms·

Photographer Sues Capcom for $12M for Using Her Photos in Video Games

28 points by ISL 5y ago

lacker 5y ago
It's pretty interesting that they caught Capcom using the same name for game files as in the source material, based on files released in the Capcom data breach from last year.
spoonjim 5y ago
Whether or not the court will award $ will depend on its assessment of the “originality” standard set by Bridgeman v. Corel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  I believe it'll mainly be about if and when those images were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The slightly mean but correct play in those cases is to: 1. Register your images with the USCO 2. Send them a friendly email that you'd appreciate if they would license your images in general, without explicit examples. 3. Wait for the next update/patch/release that distributes your images. 4. Now you're suing for willful infringement including statutory damages.
  - maratc 5y ago
    GP says if there is no originality, there is no copyright, so it does not matter if images were registered or not.
- dagw 5y ago
  I don't think that applies here. My understanding was that in Bridgeman v. Corel, Corel wasn't using Bridgeman's images, but images taken by a different photographer of the exact same subject as the photos Bridgeman claimed copyright on. In this case we're clearly talking about the exact same photo. Had someone from Capcom taken a picture of the exact same broken window as this photographer and used that photo instead then there wouldn't be a case.
ncmncm 5y ago
Good on her. Throw the book at them.
- incrudible 5y ago
  I disagree. There's no ill intent here. It's likely that artists just didn't understand they can't re-use random photos of surfaces which by themselves have no artistic merit and likely don't pass the "threshold of originality". Having said that, it does serve as a reminder that you really need to instruct your people on what source material they can use, if you want to be on the "safe side".
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The images came off a CD with specific instructions on how to license them. The intent was to use her work without paying her. We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      More likely than not the content of the CD has been copied to some network share by some random employee who probably: - didn't read the license - had they read the license, probably did not understand it - had they understood it, probably didn't think it applied to them > We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed. No, we may not. There are photographers who put up bait stock images on the internet so they can litigate against whoever is using them. It can be more profitable than collecting licensing fees.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Yeah, she put out the CD of clearly copyrighted images as bait to trick Capcom into stealing them. Poor Capcom! If only there were somebody they could have asked about what might happen if they ignored copyright terms and the photographer's request that they pay up. If only they had ever heard of possible trouble from lifting others' work. After all, they have always been happy to let anybody at all sell jailbroken copies of their own games, online!
pontifier 5y ago
I may be missing something, but if you sell a CD with images that you advertise are ready to use, how can you sue someone for actually using them? In this instance I have to side with Capcom. I can see where the artist might wish that they had a per-use royalty though. Turned the other way this could have been an opportunity to show the value of purchasing this book and CD combo.
- q3k 5y ago
  I also believe this could've been an honest mistake. There's tons of royalty-free texture CD packs from the '90s and '00s, and this could've been confused for one of them.
- dagw 5y ago
  "ready to use" and "royalty free" are two completely separate things. At the same time its quite understandable that the artists at Capcom made that mistake. At every studio I've worked there is a big shared network drive full of textures, shaders, images and reference models where people upload interesting and useful things they find. And if I'm honest the license management of the assets on that shared drive isn't always what it should be.
randompwd 5y ago
I think we need to change laws about photographic ownership. The photographer did not create any of these textures yet they're able to limit the use of said textures. Broken system. These laws made sense when photography was an expensive-ish investment. They don't make sense now.
- dagw 5y ago
  yet they're able to limit the use of said textures They're not. Had someone from Capcom been in Italy around the same time and taken the same picture of the same broken window, then they could have used that texture as much as they wanted and the photographer in question would have no case.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  They do make sense, no one, especially a multi-billion dollar company like Capcom, should be able to take the fruits of your labor and not pay you for it. Capcom should have made sure their assets were properly licensed. Honestly, $12 million dollars isn't even that much money compared to the profits of the Resident Evil franchise. Her work seems to have added a lot of ambiance to it, so consider it a good investment that the almost didn't have to pay.
treesprite82 5y ago
The book describes its textures as "ready to be used in your designs, presentations, or comps, as backgrounds or for general visual information". The high price from new (https://i.imgur.com/1H2Dp9F.png https://i.imgur.com/1H2Dp9F.png https://archive.is/5nrKM https://archive.is/5nrKM) and listed target audiences (including "architects", "designers", "graphic desginers", "theatrical and film designers", "illustrators") to me would strongly imply that the statement includes professional use. I imagine there's fine-print saying otherwise, but I could see how artists would get mislead into thinking the images are fine to use after purchase.

28 points by ISL 5y ago

It's pretty interesting that they caught Capcom using the same name for game files as in the source material, based on files released in the Capcom data breach from last year.

spoonjim 5y ago

Whether or not the court will award $ will depend on its assessment of the “originality” standard set by Bridgeman v. Corel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....

fxtentacle 5y ago
I believe it'll mainly be about if and when those images were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The slightly mean but correct play in those cases is to: 1. Register your images with the USCO 2. Send them a friendly email that you'd appreciate if they would license your images in general, without explicit examples. 3. Wait for the next update/patch/release that distributes your images. 4. Now you're suing for willful infringement including statutory damages.
- maratc 5y ago
  GP says if there is no originality, there is no copyright, so it does not matter if images were registered or not.
dagw 5y ago
I don't think that applies here. My understanding was that in Bridgeman v. Corel, Corel wasn't using Bridgeman's images, but images taken by a different photographer of the exact same subject as the photos Bridgeman claimed copyright on. In this case we're clearly talking about the exact same photo. Had someone from Capcom taken a picture of the exact same broken window as this photographer and used that photo instead then there wouldn't be a case.

ncmncm 5y ago

Good on her. Throw the book at them.

incrudible 5y ago
I disagree. There's no ill intent here. It's likely that artists just didn't understand they can't re-use random photos of surfaces which by themselves have no artistic merit and likely don't pass the "threshold of originality". Having said that, it does serve as a reminder that you really need to instruct your people on what source material they can use, if you want to be on the "safe side".
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The images came off a CD with specific instructions on how to license them. The intent was to use her work without paying her. We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    More likely than not the content of the CD has been copied to some network share by some random employee who probably: - didn't read the license - had they read the license, probably did not understand it - had they understood it, probably didn't think it applied to them > We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed. No, we may not. There are photographers who put up bait stock images on the internet so they can litigate against whoever is using them. It can be more profitable than collecting licensing fees.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Yeah, she put out the CD of clearly copyrighted images as bait to trick Capcom into stealing them. Poor Capcom! If only there were somebody they could have asked about what might happen if they ignored copyright terms and the photographer's request that they pay up. If only they had ever heard of possible trouble from lifting others' work. After all, they have always been happy to let anybody at all sell jailbroken copies of their own games, online!

pontifier 5y ago

I may be missing something, but if you sell a CD with images that you advertise are ready to use, how can you sue someone for actually using them? In this instance I have to side with Capcom. I can see where the artist might wish that they had a per-use royalty though. Turned the other way this could have been an opportunity to show the value of purchasing this book and CD combo.

q3k 5y ago
I also believe this could've been an honest mistake. There's tons of royalty-free texture CD packs from the '90s and '00s, and this could've been confused for one of them.
dagw 5y ago
"ready to use" and "royalty free" are two completely separate things. At the same time its quite understandable that the artists at Capcom made that mistake. At every studio I've worked there is a big shared network drive full of textures, shaders, images and reference models where people upload interesting and useful things they find. And if I'm honest the license management of the assets on that shared drive isn't always what it should be.

randompwd 5y ago

I think we need to change laws about photographic ownership. The photographer did not create any of these textures yet they're able to limit the use of said textures. Broken system. These laws made sense when photography was an expensive-ish investment. They don't make sense now.

dagw 5y ago
yet they're able to limit the use of said textures They're not. Had someone from Capcom been in Italy around the same time and taken the same picture of the same broken window, then they could have used that texture as much as they wanted and the photographer in question would have no case.
BizarroLand 5y ago
They do make sense, no one, especially a multi-billion dollar company like Capcom, should be able to take the fruits of your labor and not pay you for it. Capcom should have made sure their assets were properly licensed. Honestly, $12 million dollars isn't even that much money compared to the profits of the Resident Evil franchise. Her work seems to have added a lot of ambiance to it, so consider it a good investment that the almost didn't have to pay.

treesprite82 5y ago

The book describes its textures as "ready to be used in your designs, presentations, or comps, as backgrounds or for general visual information". The high price from new (https://i.imgur.com/1H2Dp9F.png https://i.imgur.com/1H2Dp9F.png https://archive.is/5nrKM https://archive.is/5nrKM) and listed target audiences (including "architects", "designers", "graphic desginers", "theatrical and film designers", "illustrators") to me would strongly imply that the statement includes professional use. I imagine there's fine-print saying otherwise, but I could see how artists would get mislead into thinking the images are fine to use after purchase.