Models

Your kind have been the bane of my freelance career for over a decade. I never copy characters nor would ever think of stealing them outright and change the texture and call it mine. Ya'all just oughta go flip burgers, or boil rice or noodles..I don't GAF but get out of the industry and leave the ethical folks to do ethical work for ethical clients. I have been running across clients who get the same S***e attitude from so called programmers too.. When the programmer realizes his ripped off script won't fit this particular game they skeedaddle with the clients money and leave them hanging.. Again making life a bitch for me..an ethical freelancer.

 

you misunderstood
I didn't say stealing is good
I just said if someone accuse you how you can prove he is not right

my point is
it feels insecurity

 

But you did say that reusing models should be ok as long as the texture is changed, which is misguided at best.

At the end of the day, you need to personally check the licenses of all of the tools and content you use.

Unfortunately, you also need to be vigilant and ready to update your game in case something does sneak in there anyway. For example, a friend of mine makes driving games and purchased a sports car for one of them, which he integrated into the game. Some time later he played Forza on Xbox, and thought one of the cars looked especially familiar. It wasn't just the same type of car, on close inspection it was the same mesh - someone had ripped it and uploaded it for sale on a prominent 3D model store. As a result he had to remove it from his game. He didn't get in any trouble, but readily admits he was lucky that he happened to play the game it was ripped from before he released that update for his game. I bet that kind of thing slips through quite a bit, and I expect that the only recourse you'd have if caught - even though it's not your fault - is to show your receipt and take immediate action to remove the infringing content.

 

I didn't mean that
the model without texture is just a humanoid model not anything special

so when I said that should be enough I mean It should be sufficient that he is acquitted
or by other words this shouldn't be enough to accuse someone

I thought if someone can accuse someone else for something like this and destroying someone's business is so easy
how a game developer can feel safe?

exactly what I mean is your friend case
he didn't anything wrong but he could easily fall into trouble for a card !

and I thank you all for letting me know about possible issues I'll be more careful about models and textures I use

 

It doesn't matter if it's "special" or not. It still belongs to the person or organisation who made it.

Plus, you seem to be discounting a) the subtle but important differences between humanoid models and b) the fact that there's a lot of work in the design, modelling, and rigging (and maybe animation - not sure in that particular case) of said model in addition to the texturing part. It's not right to take someone's work and just tweak it to call it your own unless they've specifically given you permission to use it like that.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect you could mostly only get into real trouble if you refused to do anything about it once contacted by the IP holder. I don't think that someone would have much to gain from pursuing you for something that a) you did accidentally, b) didn't cause harm or damage and c) you corrected immediately upon being informed. In fact I think there was a recent news story about exactly that (though I can't remember which game) - the issue wasn't the simple presence of a ripped model, but that the people using it had refused to take action after being contacted multiple times by the IP holder.

On a closely related note, this question...

...is exactly you should take heed of the advice others were giving earlier in the thread. As someone who wants to and/or does work in the industry you need people to be confident that you won't increase their risk of running into such trouble.

 

Try to avoid any free models offered on the web, unless you are sure 100% of their provenience.

 

Easy, create your own content. As with the zombie, even a trusted source like the asset store has the potential for issues.

 

I'm solo I don't have a company and haven't hired people but for my game I thought I can give some part of trivial modeling to others

I really didn't know about it and it worries me

 

Thank you for for reply-ing.I just did my own re-search and I found that a few games were taken down from Steam.I don't think my game will EVER be on steam...Altrought I will try not to mess anything up!I will use some models from tf3dm but,not a lot.Just in case.

 

heard battlefield .. 3 ? or 4? .. was sued by some helicopter manufacturer for putting 3d model of the helicopter in their game ... dunno who won?

 

It was settled out of court.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/16/ea-settles-battlefield-3-and-textron-helicopter-lawsuit/

 

Funny, all those posts from me with the missing posts in between. lol Looks like I am talking to myself.

 

Wow, you are ignoring more people than I am.

 

I am? Oh, I forgot. I did ignore someone, but only one person. I guess he just talked a lot.

 

@3danimation.pro knowing your stance on copyright protection of models, can I have a link to some of the art you have personally built? It would really save me time if I could just rip a few of your models and rejig the textures around.

 

EA's claim that their use of unlicensed models is covered by fair use is amusing.

If it's the person I think it is, you don't need to guess to determine that.

 

I have ignored a lot of folks for just that reason. . For a while I started ignoring any who complained about the lack of dark skin.

 

Yea... That is pretty funny.
I also thought it was interesting that EA initiated the suit, seeking declarative ruling. They knew it was going to be an issue and wanted a ruling on the books. Since it was settled, it's hard to know who 'won'. It may have gone either way.

 

The implications here are marvelous. No one's ever been caught doing it, but it's not legal. That's quite a gamble.

 

No, that statement is absurdly untrue. There have been tons of lawsuits. A friend of mine is a lawyer that specializes in that field, and he isn't the only one. It happens all the time.

 

its illegal to take someone elses 3d model and flip it..

but, what i have read before is no one has been sued for making a 3d model representation of a real life thing...
dunno if thats true, probably bs.

but, what about andy warhol's campbell soup artworks? he just did it without permission,
campbells didnt mind,
random google result about it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverh...between-trademark-and-first-amendment-rights/

i really dont know much about legal things, and really in my mind F legal things, but also, i like to be morally ethical or whatever..
anyway, if something exists in real life i should be able to 3d model it right?

this is a dumb thread to continue though... lol

 

Not really. You would need permission to use a trade mark in your game. So modelling the McDonalds golden arches is problematic, despite them existing in real life.

 

yeah no i get that ... i mean .. i should be able to
cause its art

art has no rules, and if someone wants to put rules on art, they are an enemy to all things
but chya its about the money that complicates it

 

... Can I get a link to some of your art work to steal as well? Seriously, with all the people that have no care for the rights to their own work on this thread I might be able to build a game.

That is, assuming you have actually produced some IP worth using.

 

yeah i get what youre saying,
and yeah direct rip off of 3d models like the OP was about is just dumb... even if i could source AAA super quality models for free legally, i wouldnt use em..

i was talking philosophically about artwork, artwork is about relaying a perception, and perception is influenced by real world objects and things that actually exist, therefore, to provide a perfected relayed perception, it would only make the most sense to.. do just that, provide imagery of the actual vision..

and yeah, if you want i could put together a .rar
more people that can benefit from a work only makes a work more valuable

 

You weren't really though. You were just claiming art can be anything and you can do whatever you want as long as you call it art. Which isn't true. That's not a philosophical stance, it's a justification.

Of course there are rules. The are the social contract under which we live. You are certainly free to call stealing cars and kicking puppies art if you so choose. But that won't protect you from the consequences. There certain ways in which you can use other's art, and ways you cannot. And as such, you are granted the same protections.

 

yeah...

well a logo, or any art piece, a perceived idea, when it enters another's mind, the perception of the entered mind re-imagines the original idea of the original intent.
therefore, no intent is absolute, all perceptions of the original intent are alterations.

for example, mcdonalds engineer the logo of the arches to.. be an m, be welcoming doors, look like fries? be a sunny happy color? etc ..
personally, my perception relates the mcdonalds arches with greed, and so for me to use the symbol makes the symbol mean something else.. (or i would intend to .. and others would perceive it anyway they desire)
but ultimately, it remains an arbitrary arrangement of pigments, and we simply have been taught to associate the symbol with mcdonalds,

now, the "arbitrary arrangement of pigments" is meant to be a branding
well branding is likely to have originated with ancient slavery ... so.. to acknowledge that such symbolism has any real value would be against righteousness, (in of relations) and so it would be in reason to ignore their intent in this wise.

purpose of the brand, the symbol in the first place is to "capture" your attention, to hold hostage your perception of the arbitrary arrangement of pigments to become associated with their brand... your perception of the symbol is entirely mutable until they put the association upon you, it is their "weapon" and so of course they will pay to protect it...

perhaps similar, the symbol of the swastika was for very long "the ultimate symbol of good fortune"
and not until some jackass used the symbol is it associated with "evil"

now, we can see that a hijack of symbol results to "jackass"
although, his intention of the use of the symbol is likely towards the intent of "ultimate symbol of good fortune"
soo.... the common re-association of the symbol is an alteration of its original intent, due to mutablity of perception.

ultimately, brand symbolism maybe concluded to be of mob mentality, and should be abolished from our perceptions...
as, a swastika is just a swastika

personal conclusion: property of symbolism is foolish, its too mutable by perception to be proclaimed as property.

lols ramble has flaws, ramble has some value, lols, like whatevers yo.
(ultimately, personal entertainment and exploration of "the spirit of the moment")

force of Creation is the most powerful force! (alteration lives among it)

 

I'm waiting for cadburys, American Express etc to all start claiming that certain colours in games match their trademarked rgb's from their logo's.

& instead of the Golden Arches you can have the Golden Arcs

 

You know what I mean though. "No one" is an exaggeration of the <1% of people who get caught committing cyber crimes like this. Gotta love websites like

Spoiler: gray

1channel (intentionally named previous version so people who don't know about it won't find it now)

because the laws dunno what to do about them. They should probably change the laws to include possession instead of just distribution. Make it like drugs are now - a light fine for possession, a heavy fine for distribution.

That still makes it hard to deal with sites like this if you stream instead of download, but whatever. The Cohen lad has made life quite difficult for law enforcement.