3 ms·

Just because you only need low res versions, doesn't mean you're exempt from copyright. Juracek without doubt owns copyright on those images. Capcom are going t

Just because you only need low res versions, doesn't mean you're exempt from copyright. Juracek without doubt owns copyright on those images. Capcom are going to have to convince a judge they had permission to use the images from the copyright holder. It seems unlikely there was an explicit rights grant on the CD for use in a commercial game, Capcom are going to be trying to lean heavily (too heavily, it seems to me) on that vague wording in the marketing copy to assert they have rights to use them. Juracek could have made their limited rights grant more explicit, but copyright generally works on an "if you do not have explicit permission to use a work in a particular way, you have only very limited rights to make a copy of it" basis.

stordoff 5y ago
> Just because you only need low res versions, doesn't mean you're exempt from copyright. That's not what I was trying to say. What I meant that the claimant's argument is simply "You did not have a licence to use the images on the CD in that way". Presenting the argument as "the parties were required to contact Juracek to obtain high resolution digital files [and they did not do so]" _seems_ to add a particular significance to the high resolution images, when it's, as you say, irrelevant (what matters is whether they obtained a licence, not the high resolution images). Unless I'm missing something, you could replace paragraph 17 with: > As a result of the book and photographs and CD-ROM, Juracek licensed copies of various photographs to many different parties who sought to use the photos commercially and the book became a very popular way for architects and designers to obtain exclusive high quality examples of unique decorative surfaces and features. Anyone seeking a license for the photographs from the book or CD-ROM were required to contact Plaintiff to obtain a commercial use license as all rights were reserved as set forth in the copyright notice. and have the same effect. It just seemed like a needlessly complicated way to make the same argument.

stordoff 5y ago

> Just because you only need low res versions, doesn't mean you're exempt from copyright. That's not what I was trying to say. What I meant that the claimant's argument is simply "You did not have a licence to use the images on the CD in that way". Presenting the argument as "the parties were required to contact Juracek to obtain high resolution digital files [and they did not do so]" _seems_ to add a particular significance to the high resolution images, when it's, as you say, irrelevant (what matters is whether they obtained a licence, not the high resolution images). Unless I'm missing something, you could replace paragraph 17 with: > As a result of the book and photographs and CD-ROM, Juracek licensed copies of various photographs to many different parties who sought to use the photos commercially and the book became a very popular way for architects and designers to obtain exclusive high quality examples of unique decorative surfaces and features. Anyone seeking a license for the photographs from the book or CD-ROM were required to contact Plaintiff to obtain a commercial use license as all rights were reserved as set forth in the copyright notice. and have the same effect. It just seemed like a needlessly complicated way to make the same argument.