Agreed, and there are no identifiable features, oh and how many times you seen a town center with stonhenge in the middle, a castle on the left with its lights on, with archery targets under it, a red seperater wall for the road, mountians with a rainbow in the background, 6 buildings on the right (3 in foreground 3 in background), a red pedistle tower with 2 platforms, a dock in the left foreground, a statue with red and blue crystals pointing up from the ground in a circle around it, a well with a hinge based buchet pull, a brown tower in the middle, and a moat around the castle with a path going up to it.
The issue is that its close enough that you could be sued, would you win, id say you probably would, but you -could- lose as it is defently in the gray area.
The layout the design the look and feel are all very close and some elements look almost traced over. (tracing is copyright infringment)
Personally I think that it isnt infringing however I dont want people to assume they wont be and end up getting sued, as the only major diference between the 2 pictures is the brown tower in the middle, the others elements are incredibly close.
Also you have to realise that while this is an amazing piece if it was a terrable piece we wouldnt have this discussion, the quality of the art however has no bearing on if its infringing or not.
The trademark is actually only part of the issue and actually its prolly the least of the issues.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses. Allowed as a pre-existing commonplace element, provided it is a drawing of a generic boy, and does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses labelled “Harry Potter”. Allowed under the same conditions as above. The mere addition of the words “Harry Potter” do not turn a generic representation into an infringing copy. There is no copyright in a mere allusion.
A drawing of a boy in a wizard hat and robes, whether or not labelled “Harry Potter”. Allowed as a pre-existing commonplace element, provided it is a drawing of a generic boy wizard, and does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games.
A drawing of a boy with black hair and glasses, with a zig-zag scar on his forehead, whether or not labelled “Harry Potter”. Here, the combination of features taken may be unique to the character in JK Rowling's novels, but such a combination is in itself likely to be considered an uncopyrightable idea in the US courts. Also, as stated above, the English courts do not recognise the concept of copyright in a literary character at all. This should therefore be allowed, provided it does not copy the specific realizations of the book cover illustrations, the movies, or the computer games. However, drawings with this much JK Rowling detail or more should be reviewed carefully to ensure that they are not actually copied from a screen representation. If there is doubt the precautionary principle should be applied.
This falls under catagory 4, the labeling -may- be an issue but not a copyright one. There is still the issue of copyright, it may be different enough that it should be ok but it also is close enough it may not be.
I would say that its on the fence, its close to derivitive but i dont know if it quite crosses the threshold. I would say from my knowladge of copyright law that at the very least it could go eaither way depending on the judges mood, what he had for breakfast, lunar cycle etc.
Scrambling the buildings etc wont solve the problem, the issue at hand is the first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
Also how does Commons:Fanart say there may be no problems they say the exact opposit in fact.
Part of the idea of oga is that the art on it is all free to use and that people dont have to wory about being sued when using work fom it.
The only way that work like this can be allowed is under fair use. Unfortuinitly this work probably wouldnt fall under fair use as it could be consideered a direct market substitute for the original.
Also the title is not an issue as names cant be copywritten as such its the only part of the work that is legal :(
The real question here is what makes your game different/better/etc from all the other games out there. You have class's and power/def/life thats all we know and frankly about as generic as it gets.
Agreed, and there are no identifiable features, oh and how many times you seen a town center with stonhenge in the middle, a castle on the left with its lights on, with archery targets under it, a red seperater wall for the road, mountians with a rainbow in the background, 6 buildings on the right (3 in foreground 3 in background), a red pedistle tower with 2 platforms, a dock in the left foreground, a statue with red and blue crystals pointing up from the ground in a circle around it, a well with a hinge based buchet pull, a brown tower in the middle, and a moat around the castle with a path going up to it.
The issue is that its close enough that you could be sued, would you win, id say you probably would, but you -could- lose as it is defently in the gray area.
The layout the design the look and feel are all very close and some elements look almost traced over. (tracing is copyright infringment)
Personally I think that it isnt infringing however I dont want people to assume they wont be and end up getting sued, as the only major diference between the 2 pictures is the brown tower in the middle, the others elements are incredibly close.
Also you have to realise that while this is an amazing piece if it was a terrable piece we wouldnt have this discussion, the quality of the art however has no bearing on if its infringing or not.
The trademark is actually only part of the issue and actually its prolly the least of the issues.
This falls under catagory 4, the labeling -may- be an issue but not a copyright one. There is still the issue of copyright, it may be different enough that it should be ok but it also is close enough it may not be.
I would say that its on the fence, its close to derivitive but i dont know if it quite crosses the threshold. I would say from my knowladge of copyright law that at the very least it could go eaither way depending on the judges mood, what he had for breakfast, lunar cycle etc.
Scrambling the buildings etc wont solve the problem, the issue at hand is the first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
Also how does Commons:Fanart say there may be no problems they say the exact opposit in fact.
Part of the idea of oga is that the art on it is all free to use and that people dont have to wory about being sued when using work fom it.
The only way that work like this can be allowed is under fair use. Unfortuinitly this work probably wouldnt fall under fair use as it could be consideered a direct market substitute for the original.
Also the title is not an issue as names cant be copywritten as such its the only part of the work that is legal :(
We have a modular building system for our game using blender library linking, may give you some ideas http://tempestintheaether.org/content/blender-26-library-linking-modelin...
http://opengameart.org/forums/show-your-project
you can post all those however we prefer open formats, ie .blend over .max
Its pretty hard to irritate people around here :)
The real question here is what makes your game different/better/etc from all the other games out there. You have class's and power/def/life thats all we know and frankly about as generic as it gets.
Pages