Currently working on...
-
Ra_Ra_Gazaa
- Resident Phantasm
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 04:08 am
You know that this way you don't hold the copyright on your derived work - better delete this thread so no one finds outCruaich wrote:For the most part yes. I did rip the zombie for the barrel, the rest is original, done by hand stuff. I'll always use the original as a refrence pic. Some times I'll use an original as a base for the correct collors and work from there.
I'll use a texture some times, if it seems apropriate. I think you can tell where I've done so in the past. Some times I'll use part of an image I've found off Google image search; the plant leaves, the clock face and that rust on the saw for example. I really need to get a camera and start building my own texture base.
So, like even if you happen to take a picture of some one that happens to have some peice of copyrighted work in the background, you actuly have no right in reproducing that photograph? Ah, man I think we are ALL in deap s*** for doing something like that.
There is a little something called "fair use." Think of it as doing a research project with supporting evidence.
And when have I ever deleted some one elses thread?
There is a little something called "fair use." Think of it as doing a research project with supporting evidence.
And when have I ever deleted some one elses thread?
Item 1. The Transformative Factorhttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html wrote: 1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
* Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary.
EXAMPLE: Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use.
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels.
In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his expression.
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."
This rule--less is more--is not necessarily true in parody cases. In a parody, the parodist is borrowing in order to comment upon the original work. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. That's because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the [original] for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. " (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. As we indicated previously, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.
For example, in one case an artist used a copyrighted photograph without permission as the basis for wood sculptures, copying all of the elements of the photo. The artist earned several hundred thousand dollars selling the sculptures. When the photographer sued, the artist claimed his sculptures were a fair use because the photographer would never have considered making sculptures. The court disagreed, stating that it did not matter whether the photographer had considered making sculptures; what mattered was that a potential market for sculptures of the photograph existed. ( Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992).)
In the cases where I have taken some peices of original work, I have smoothed out and amplified the artwork, and would consider that I have added value to the original.
Item 2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Most of what I've found and have use by way of textures have been from educational sources (anatomy drawing and the like).
I don't think that they've ever though "Hey, I think I'm going to recreate Blood with this leaf picture, or sell it to Atari so they can have some one recreate the game for wich they arn't getting paid or be able to sell."
Since I found it on the internet, the first public apperance has already been made, and it's original market has already been established.
Item 3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
The canned zombie for example. I've riped it from the original, yes it's a major, definative part of the artwork. BUT we already have permission to do so from Atari and going back to Item 1, I've added detail to the original, as to complement the peice.
Item 4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market.
You have to consider that we have permission to use the copyrighted works of Blood by the publisher, Atari. One can then conclude that Atari has no intrest in reproducing Blood in the manner we've proposed and is therefor not a threat to the "Potential Market" Blood has already had it's day in the lime light.
Wanting to and actually being able to are two different things. We CAN'T release the entirety of Transfusion as a remake of Blood under the GPL as the rights to it are not ours to simply relabel.
We are required to give away the technology Transfusion runs on as it is based on DarkPlaces, a GPL variant of the Quake engine. We are however NOT required to distribute the media content of the game under the GPL.
If all our media (maps, sounds, textures, rendered movies etc.), everything that goes into the game were 100% recreations, we could license out the individual pieces however we felt; but we still could not license the entirety or even a majority of it out as a whole because as a whole it represents a recreation of Blood which STILL belongs to Atari.
Atari gave us the right to recreate Blood and give it away for free on a quitclaim basis. We cannot however relabel the quitclaim license as a GPL license. Forcing everything into the GPL would make the game an economically feasible creation which WOULD be an infringement on Atari's rights to the game regardless of remaking 100% of the media, the quitclaim license or having been renamed "Transfusion." to avoid trademark issues.
We are required to give away the technology Transfusion runs on as it is based on DarkPlaces, a GPL variant of the Quake engine. We are however NOT required to distribute the media content of the game under the GPL.
If all our media (maps, sounds, textures, rendered movies etc.), everything that goes into the game were 100% recreations, we could license out the individual pieces however we felt; but we still could not license the entirety or even a majority of it out as a whole because as a whole it represents a recreation of Blood which STILL belongs to Atari.
Atari gave us the right to recreate Blood and give it away for free on a quitclaim basis. We cannot however relabel the quitclaim license as a GPL license. Forcing everything into the GPL would make the game an economically feasible creation which WOULD be an infringement on Atari's rights to the game regardless of remaking 100% of the media, the quitclaim license or having been renamed "Transfusion." to avoid trademark issues.
-
Ringman