I don't know how any of that addressed my post. I specifically stated I do not think he has any legal grounds to do anything here. Your odd cigar shop analogy does not change the fact that his work and talent are being exploited for commercial gain. He should be properly credited for his work at a minimum. Period.
F1 2017 How did a F2002 mod from AC end up in F1 2017???
- Thread starter SalamanderSoldier
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assetto corsa f12017 f2002
F1 2017 The Game (Codemasters)
- Status
The odd cigar shop analogy addresses your post because it shows that your assumption that what Codemasters did was worse ethically/ legally than what the op did, and is probably still doing, is erroneous.
In case this is lost on you again, I shall distill it even further.
Codemasters using his model (that's if they in fact did) = no loss of income for the op.
The op and other modders selling and giving away similar content to what Codemasters are selling = loss of income and loss of opportunity for Codemasters and other devs who had to pay through the nose to be able to profit from the sale of that content.
I also find it rather curious that you see very clearly that the OP's work is being exploited, but you don't see the OP exploiting Ferrari's intellectual property for his personal financial gain. Why is that?
I mean, what makes the OP so special that he's allowed to make a profit from Ferrari's IP, whereas Codemasters have to hand over wads of cash to be able to make a profit from the same content. Not very fair to Codemasters, is it?
You wanna play the smart ass guy ? ok
The model itself is not a F2002, the nose was modeled slightly different, even with 1mm difference i can claim it's not a F2002 ... the only thing that was made without ferrari's permission is the skin, and we're not discussing that here.
Sorry, but that won't cut it. You can claim what you like but It's clearly a Ferrari f2002 in terms of body design and livery. If your model even remotely resembles a Ferrari you've stolen their IP, it's as simple as that.
Codemasters model is also different from the OP's model in quite a few areas, so they can claim it's not the OP's model. Problem solved.
You haven't even read this whole thread...
As a matter of fact I have. Not only this one, but a few other ones on this very same topic.
Then how are you unaware that OP already stated those are his changes? He specifically stated that he made those changes to the version he put on Turbosquid.
It's irrelevant because I made my case under the assumption that Codemasters did in fact use the OP's model in a modified form ( although I can't be sure of this as the mesh match could in fact be purely coincidental).
Either way, it makes no difference to the validity of my argument.
mizuki_daiski
@Simberia
if so, all modders are breaking the law. Maybe we should stop supporting them and report them immediately.
if so, all modders are breaking the law. Maybe we should stop supporting them and report them immediately.
I'm not going to report anyone, why would I? I just don't think it's fair to point the finger at someone allegedly stealing from you if you're doing some stealing yourself. I think it's hypocritical, that's all.
D
Deleted member 408599
-
Deleted member 408599
I celebrate that there are people that spending the this thing well with my comments... It was not expecting for less any from you. The question is that not only the Moders acted of way illicit, if not that even protests with too many vehemence... Regarding to the accusations of " multiple accounts ", another you regurgitate mas without having the minimal mas design of if it is true or not... Please, you can check the IPs. Arturo Pardos.
That's a much better idea than opening a thread about how Codies allegedly stole a model which he in turn stole ip from Ferrari to be able to create -- and which he is selling for personal financial gain without the required license to be able to do so legally.
@Some_Guy_Here. I don't know if you know this but the Gentleman with the Audi Quattro S1 as an Avatar called @Gergo Panker is a bit of an expert on this subject. In fact, he is a game developer and 3d modeller himself, working for @kunos. I think he nows what he's saying. So , please go back a few pages and reread what he has written, it might clear things up a little bit for you
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 408599
-
Deleted member 408599
You should to be frank but impartial...
D
Deleted member 408599
-
Deleted member 408599
[QUOTE = "Some_Guy_Here, post: 2612379, member: 407628"] Esa es una idea mucho mejor que abrir un hilo acerca de cómo los Codies supuestamente robaron un modelo que a su vez robó IP de Ferrari para poder crear, y cuál es vender para ganancia financiera personal sin la licencia requerida para poder hacerlo legalmente. [/ QUOTE]
Yes, I quite agree, I think so too.
Yes, I quite agree, I think so too.
Just to add... I'm a freelance video producer, I've had segmetnt and entire videos shared online without my permission from a tourism company here in NZ. My reactions went from flattered that they would use my work to angry that they were using it to make a profit and did not even credit me for my hard work (done for free and released online) It's a very similar situation, unfortunately it happens way too often with photography/videography in an online environment...
My suggestion to approach the company with your evidence, including the messages from the apparent "modeller" and let codies know that you can help with further models. Your CV is already in game!
As others have said, it's probably not a legal issue but more of an ethical/moral issue with your work being used. Approach them in a open fashion and you could potentially start making actual money for your epic work modelling F1 cars
I feel your pain tho 100%
Good luck
D
Deleted member 408599
-
Deleted member 408599
CM should contract the Moders Salamanders, since it does very well his work. I hope that CM does not stop to go on to such a good Moders. Only I say that we should be mas impartial to Salamanders and to CM. So who's perfect? They all deserve a fair and costly trial.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gergo Panker
pankykapus
Let me clarify once more, and then I let the OP and RD clear up this mess that this thread has become:
Ignore the licence, what this is essentially is bad practice from a developer studio.
A contract artist used another artist's model, received payment and probably credit for it as if it was his original work, either knowingly or unknowingly by staff artists or producers on the developer's part. If knowingly, it's even worse, if unknowingly, the OP should still be compensated fairly, especially that his work stands out from the base roster of the game.
A developer cannot just take someone else's work, justifying it by saying that the artist never had the rights in the first place, this is ludicrous. Every mod that becomes official content is (should be) paid for as agreed by the developer and the artist in advance.
Also editorial terms, such as the ones you see on Turbosquid, don't work like that, better don't say anything if you never worked in this industry before.
Ignore the licence, what this is essentially is bad practice from a developer studio.
A contract artist used another artist's model, received payment and probably credit for it as if it was his original work, either knowingly or unknowingly by staff artists or producers on the developer's part. If knowingly, it's even worse, if unknowingly, the OP should still be compensated fairly, especially that his work stands out from the base roster of the game.
A developer cannot just take someone else's work, justifying it by saying that the artist never had the rights in the first place, this is ludicrous. Every mod that becomes official content is (should be) paid for as agreed by the developer and the artist in advance.
Also editorial terms, such as the ones you see on Turbosquid, don't work like that, better don't say anything if you never worked in this industry before.
Last edited:
We've already covered all of this and don't see why it needs to be revisited. Indeed taking someone's model is bad practice, just like selling Ferrari ip without their permission is bad practice, plus it's illegal.
Neither Codemasters, nor the OP stand on particularly high moral ground here, although from a legal point of view codemasters have a stronger case against the OP than the OP does against Codemasters, for the reasons I've already pointed out.
And I may not work in the modding industry, but I work in marketing and I am familiar with the general Law surrounding IP, copyright and trademarking.
- Status
