4 ms·

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

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!
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > Yeah, she put out the CD of clearly copyrighted images as bait to trick Capcom into stealing them. I didn't say that. You said we can assume she contacted them. I'm telling you why we can't assume that: It's more profitable to litigate outright, rather than seeking an agreement. So profitable indeed, that some photographers (not necessarily her) take advantage of the fact. > Poor Capcom! You must've never dealt with employees. They'll just do stuff and you're on the hook for it. You can have workshops on legal issues and they'll forget and ignore it all. Why the hell would Capcom risk a lawsuit by copying (crappy-quality) images from a CD? To save a few bucks on a multi-million dollar game production? Do you think there's some guy there with a monocle, twisting his mustache, amused by the thought of having stolen the work of some photographer? I can almost guarantee the whole thing transpired like I said: Some employee copied something and it took on a life of its own. Nobody paid attention to the license. Not everybody is a nerd about international copyright. Not everybody would automatically assume that a random picture of a spider web is entitled to copyright in the first place.

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!
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Yeah, she put out the CD of clearly copyrighted images as bait to trick Capcom into stealing them. I didn't say that. You said we can assume she contacted them. I'm telling you why we can't assume that: It's more profitable to litigate outright, rather than seeking an agreement. So profitable indeed, that some photographers (not necessarily her) take advantage of the fact. > Poor Capcom! You must've never dealt with employees. They'll just do stuff and you're on the hook for it. You can have workshops on legal issues and they'll forget and ignore it all. Why the hell would Capcom risk a lawsuit by copying (crappy-quality) images from a CD? To save a few bucks on a multi-million dollar game production? Do you think there's some guy there with a monocle, twisting his mustache, amused by the thought of having stolen the work of some photographer? I can almost guarantee the whole thing transpired like I said: Some employee copied something and it took on a life of its own. Nobody paid attention to the license. Not everybody is a nerd about international copyright. Not everybody would automatically assume that a random picture of a spider web is entitled to copyright in the first place.