When it comes to purchasing 3d models for royalty free usage , I tend to confuse my self some times.
Lets say we find, for example a helicopter on turbosquid and we will immediately see that is listed as a Editorial License or something similar, saying that you cant use it in commercial games/products because its the product of a real company/logos?
Than we find the same seller on cgtrader and the same thing is listed as royalty free license/ usage.
I see this phenomenon between turbosquid ,cgtrader and other places all the time,weapons,machines,vehicles and i think once, even for a refrigerator :rolleyes:
Ive been introduced to the terminology of artistic license since some time, but I want to know if I am interpreting it right.
Lets say we take a big ch-53 super stallion helicopter to cut on dev time.If I remove one of the rotor blades and move all of the blades to the front and than copy/ paste the blades to the back so that it looks like a Chinook helicopter > is that a artistic license? As its a kind of fast and cheap ‘‘artistic representation’’ of the model.Maybe even add more scale and ornate it with kit bashing assets.Can the company that owns the rights to the machine get on the legal side one day or will it view it as a artistic representation/license in use?
Than, why are we seeing this in games and movies all the time? Doubt anyone is getting sued or that many of them even have a license to do so. For example lets look at the helicopter from resident evil afterlife.Its just a v22 osprey but in black and a stealthy front.
Grand theft auto does it all the time.The battlefield games don’t even try to mask it and world of tanks has been doing it for years. I think that a line to where this should stop was never drawn but one must always try to disguise its origin??
And if we look at the real first person weapons that are used in the games in these forums?
I’m not a lawyer, and the world of copyright is suuuuper complex
BUT, as far as I understand it artistic license (like ambershee said) isn’t a legal concept, but creating derivative works, things like that, is part of copyright law. This type of thing only applies if you’re either transforming the nature of the piece in question or using the piece for educational purposes, or creating satire or parody for the purpose of making a commentary about, or using, the piece in question.
commercially motivated things are less likely to receive artistic … waivers… or whatever.
For your question specifically I’d say that simply transforming the rotors might not be enough to qualify since the nature of the original work was intended to be a 3d model of a helicopter, and you’ve modified it in to a different helicopter. The intent of the piece is 99.9% identical.
Now, if you took the ch-53 and reinterpreted the model to be completely unrecognizable, and used the cockpit as a BBQ and the blades as the grill… Then you’re transforming the nature of the piece (heli to BBQ), and also you’re transforming the appearance of the piece. I’d say that would be closer to artistic license. And even then this is super sketchy.
it also comes down to who has more money and time to fight about it if someone was so inclined.
Creating a representation of something that exists, like representing a real gun as a 3d model in a game is sorta transformative use. But this is getting really murky, because I think you’re conflating different concepts.
If you take someone elses model that they created, they own that specific creation. And you must abide by certain copyright laws.
If you make a model of something that exists elsewhere in the world, like a gun or a tank or a helicopter, that model is your creation and it is a specific artistic representation that YOU made. And now you have some claim to that specific creation.
Typically there are no copyright holders for objects. If you model a 3d representation of a garbage can there is no garbage can group that will come after you for replicating their design.
BUT if you create a 3d model of a sculpture you see in public… there actually might be a copyright that the sculptures artist has to the design. ANd you have to be careful with architecture, since the designs can be protected in certain ways as well.
All I’m getting at is that this issue is actually *psychotically *complex and depends on a variety of factors, so I’d recommend keeping it much simpler.
Make your own assets, or keep very good records of what your rights are to the assets you use.
I agree, it really is a *psychotically *complex topic that i think many ignore as nothing important has hapened.Ive never heard of a indie geting sued for such a situation.And i have been thinking,lets look at mobile phones today.Most, shape and look wise are identical, but we dont see companies sue each other.
Or airplanes.Place together a boing,airbus and the others, remove the logos and they all look similar.Also when someone sells a model and places a royalty free sertificate( even if it may not be 100% true) the fault should be placed on the seller or the page that accepts the models (and is obligated to check)and not the final client if im not mistaking?
I see a good ammount of real objects on the epic store that are advertised for commercial work too, so even Epic doesnt care?
The more i try to understand it, the more I think this situation is a black hole that probably no one has explored because of mutual/ personal interests.
And maybe it should be something best left alone?
I’d agree, I think it’s really frequent that even though certain uses and situations are technically bad practice or against the law it often doesn’t amount to anything.
So it’s also a risk/reward calculation.
What I do is use random assets I can get my hands on as prototyping elements, and then I replace everything as it’s turn comes up in the giant spreadsheet of tasks.
Really interestingly, a relatively common thing popping up right now is graffiti artists suing movies and tv shows when the artists art pops up in the background. It’s not as clean cut as you might think. Some cases the graf artist wins, and some cases the artists loses. Usually there’s this whole rigmarole around how an artist can sue for damages if they created the art illegally.
But it’s interesting food for thought because almost every single indie film that takes place near an alley will have some spicy visual graffiti in it and they’ll just consider it fair use, or an added bonus.
But if a big company like HBO films near a well known alley in San Fran… the issue can become way more complex.
So for indies using random assets online, generally not tons will come from it.
Man, I think you are being over distressed for nothing. I will tell my way of thinking and how I do things.
Like many other solo devs here, I purchased almost every asset used in my game (except some free ones) from many marketplaces, includind turbosquid.
So whenever I purshase some asset, I know I am doing the right thing in a moral point of view, because besides the legal trouble of “stealing” other game’s assets, I think it is immoral you use another person work without paying respect to him/her, using their work without authorization.
After I purchased the asset, after I payd for it, I use it however I want, I don’t care if the author says it must be used this way only, and not that way. I think I am not cheating, because I paid the price for that product, so now I can use it however I want. Just like when you purchase a car, then you want to make it a mobile fast food truck, to earn money from it.
For every asset I purchase, I change it completely, I change the texture, some model details, until it becomes unrecognizeable from the original asset, and let’s be realistic, there is absolutely no way to distinguish in example, a general AK-47 rifle of one game from another, because they all look identical.
I do the same with character models, I purchased many soldiers, terrorists, and so on, then I make changes on these character, on their textures, I even mix body parts from ones to anothers, so this way I can make these character look unique, and not just a generic character from marketplace.
My last words, don’t overwhelm yourself with these small detail, once you paid for the model, use it however you want, and change it, so it will not look like the original purchased asset.
