[HN Gopher] Artist says Capcom stole her photos for Resident Evi...
___________________________________________________________________
Artist says Capcom stole her photos for Resident Evil, Devil May
Cry
Author : polm23
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-06-07 03:10 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.polygon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.polygon.com)
| cwkoss wrote:
| Hypothetical Question:
|
| If someone trained a neural network to create wood textures, and
| 1 of N training images came from this book, would wood textures
| generated by this NN infringe on the author's copyright?
|
| To what extent does the size of N change the answer? (I'm sure 1
| is no good, but is 10 enough? 100? 1000?)
| curtisf wrote:
| (not a lawyer)
|
| My understanding of the situation in US copyright law is that
| the synthesized images would clearly be derivative works, and
| thus copyright holders have rights to the (portion of the)
| output which is derivative.
|
| However, such a use might be considered fair use. (Fair use is
| not an exception to copyright itself; it just limits what the
| copyright holder can stop you from doing) There is no perfect
| checklist of what constitutes fair use, but there are
| established criteria that weight in favor or against fair use.
|
| Substantiality may weigh in favor of fair use since only some
| of the input images appears in the output (and less so if
| mixing many together)
|
| Affect on the original work may weigh against fair use -- if
| you can use the texture synthesizer instead of buying the
| original texture reference book.
|
| I think there's limited precedent that machine learning models
| can claim fair use of their input text, but I'm guessing the
| specific case of reference textures => texture models may be
| hard to argue as fair use (unless you have rights to at least
| _most_ of the inputs)
| tshaddox wrote:
| I imagine this would be treated by the legal system the same
| way any derivative work produced by a human would be.
| aaron695 wrote:
| There is no clear answer if you are looking outside of what a
| judge will decide. The book says -
|
| "the CD images can be used by artists and designers in developing
| concepts, preparing presentations for clients, and communicating
| visual information to others. Although the images are primarily
| intended for on-screen display, they can also be printed on
| either a black and white or color printer.
|
| It's clear, only "preparing presentations" not using in
| presentations.
|
| Equally the book buyers comments all think you can use the photos
| when making things. So clearly the CD gets sold for wink wink
| reasons and she would have to know that, but we also all know
| Capcom have had multiple people using the photos without everyone
| having a copy and they also know they are not a person just using
| the photos in a one off illegal presentation.
|
| Legally it will be complex, we will see. It is interesting she
| allowed formatting shifting, you could print the photos. Was that
| legal when the book came out or was she adding additional rights
| and how does that effect the default copyright.
| server_bot wrote:
| While this seems like a convincing case, at what point is it
| morally acceptable to produce new art derived from existing work?
|
| Would it have been fine if Capcom had re-created near identical
| patterns without use of the book's original digital files? It's a
| reference book after all.
|
| Not saying Capcom should profit without crediting the original
| artist. But visual art remixing textures feels more grey area to
| me than copy/pasting code or someone's writing.
| neoCrimeLabs wrote:
| I think the answer to your questions and thoughts can be
| responded to with "It depends." Truly, these cases and their
| outcomes can not be predicted, no matter how clear cut they
| appear to be.
|
| Here's a great summary of some of the best appropriation cases
| involving art, and their outcomes:
|
| https://news.fordham.edu/arts-and-culture/top-10-cases-on-ap...
| indigochill wrote:
| > But visual art remixing textures feels more grey area to me
| than copy/pasting code or someone's writing.
|
| Artists use reference material all the time, and as long as the
| new work is the product of the new artist, it's all good. But
| directly copying art and then modifying it is still copying
| copyrighted material.
|
| My understanding is in the music remix world, if you want to
| feature a song in your remix, you should get a license.
|
| Similarly, my brother makes AMV videos and as I understand from
| him, the music rights-holders (not the anime rights-holders,
| interestingly...) will then claim all the monetization on those
| videos.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > But directly copying art and then modifying it is still
| copying copyrighted material.
|
| As my uncle comment suggests (
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27426639 ) it's not
| clear cut. Just because you hit ctrl-c then ctrl-v on an
| asset doesn't mean what you're doing is automatically
| copyright infringement, it might be fair use assuming you
| changed something to a point where it's a derivative work
| based on the original work.
|
| > the music rights-holders (not the anime rights-holders,
| interestingly...) will then claim all the monetization on
| those videos.
|
| This is a Content ID Claim, and it's a system YouTube
| themselves made up so that companies can automatically start
| garnishing monetization earnings on videos that use their
| work in any capacity without having to do DMCAs themselves.
| In no way is this tied to copyright or fair use.
| fvdessen wrote:
| As an artist I frankly wonder what's the point of these texture
| books if you can't re-use the textures in your own works. It's
| like an audio sample pack where you can't use the samples, or
| an algorithmic book where you can't reuse the algorithms ...
| moate wrote:
| What kind of artist are you? As a painter, I can tell you
| there's use in having textures to reference while you draw
| things yourself. It's more like buying an image off getty to
| get the watermark off but not paying the extra 20 dollars for
| commercial use.
| prpl wrote:
| You're familiar with the Numerical Recipes books?
| philjohn wrote:
| Different audio sample packs have different licensing terms -
| some confer full rights to use them in an audio production,
| some only in non-commercial productions with commercial
| requiring a license to be purchased.
|
| Similarly, in this case, it's a reference book - and there
| just so happens to be verbiage that says "for commercial use
| of any of these, contact the author".
| aeturnum wrote:
| You can re-use the textures in your own works. You can even
| create a new original work, using the textures as a
| reference, and pay nothing. The only thing you can't do is
| use the reference textures directly in a new work without
| securing an additional license.
|
| I'm pretty sure that, by volume, most art is not sold in a
| commercial environment and its creators could use the book
| without concern.
| teachingassist wrote:
| > Would it have been fine if Capcom had re-created near
| identical patterns without use of the book's original digital
| files?
|
| In copyright law this is usually fine, yes.
| ajross wrote:
| From the blurb at the Amazon sales page, presumably copied from
| the text or its marketing material:
| https://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Research-Artists-Architects-...
| Surfaces: Visual Research for Artists, Architects, and Designers
| Surfaces offers over 1,200 outstanding, vibrantly colorful visual
| images of surface textures--wood, stone, marble, brick, plaster,
| stucco, aggregates, metal, tile, and glass--ready to be used in
| your designs, presentations, or comps, as backgrounds or for
| general visual information.
|
| I have a very, very hard time imagining that this is going to get
| past a fair use argument. Capcom is doing with these images
| exactly what the author intended. If the author wants to be able
| to sue for royalties after the fact, then that blurb can only be
| read as a deliberate booby trap.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Also, google books:
| https://www.google.com/books/edition/Surfaces/Q1ZWyWDcq1YC?h...
|
| The first 40-some pages are on Google Books' preview, although
| pages 6-10 weren't available to me.
|
| Copyright page (4):
| https://i.judge.sh/silver/Minuette/chrome_nJii0PAQoL.png
| [deleted]
| xbar wrote:
| An incomplete Amazon blurb won't save you from the licensing
| requirement that exists in the text itself.
| stordoff wrote:
| From the "Look Inside" preview, I'm not convinced the book
| makes it as clear as it could. The "About the CD-ROM" section
| includes "the CD images can be used be artists and designers
| in developing concepts, preparing presentations for clients,
| and communicating visual information with others". It seems
| the images can be used directly in some contexts, and
| "communicating visual information with others" feels very
| vague to me.
|
| At the very least, a note in this section stating that a
| licence is required for some uses would be a useful
| clarification.
| klyrs wrote:
| One expects Capcom's legal department to be more diligent
| than folks here making armchair judements after skimming
| Amazon. You think the implied license is murky yourself --
| would you jump to the conclusion that the art is free for
| all purposes? Or would you do your due diligence before
| using these resources?
| rhino369 wrote:
| If they cleared this, that's a horrible decision. I doubt
| they did. Its pretty common for employees to do their own
| sort of back of the envelope analysis or to pass off
| copied work as their own (especially if they modified it
| a bit).
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Paragraphs 16 & 17 in the court filing note that the book
| and CD stated that a licence was required for commercial
| use.
| teachingassist wrote:
| > "the CD images can be used be artists and designers in
| developing concepts, preparing presentations for clients,
| and communicating visual information with others"
|
| This effectively _is_ a license. It 's implied that the
| copyright holder has not given you further rights than
| this.
|
| As you say, Capcom may well claim that they are
| communicating visual information with others.
| iamben wrote:
| I own quite a few of the books with 'old' images in - ie ones
| that have been collated because they're in the public domain
| now, and everything is free to use.
|
| I wonder if there was a particular licence in this book? Like
| if I buy an image from a stock site, generally it's "fine for
| the web as part of a 'something'" but I need an extended
| licence to sell it on t-shirts or book covers. Maybe something
| like that? But I agree that feels like a stretch...
| baud147258 wrote:
| the pictures in the books aren't public domain and, according
| to the article "Juracek [the photograph] said she requires
| people to license images from her for commercial use by
| contacting her directly"
| judge2020 wrote:
| Well, what she says now and what is shown to the customer
| at purchase/before use is what matters. That's why repos
| have a LICENSE file - you need proof that someone
| improperly used the work without adhering to the license or
| were reckless enough to not read the license before reusing
| the work.
| kadoban wrote:
| Isn't it largely the other way around, the accused would
| need to show that they have some suitable license or
| successfully argue that the have fair-use grounds (the
| latter sounds unlikely in this case to me)?
|
| Maybe it's a distinction without a difference in civil
| matters, since there's not really a presumption of guilt
| or innocence AFAIK in civil.
| Retric wrote:
| No, you need explicit permission to use copyrighted works
| outside of fair use exceptions. Therefore it's up to the
| customer to prove they got permission from the correct
| source.
| moate wrote:
| My understanding is that there's also language in the book that
| basically says "for reference, not for commercial reproduction
| use"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-07 23:01 UTC)