|
Lightning Lord posted:Speaking of Bloodlines, how is BLOODLUST SHADOWHUNTER, aside from sounding like a 90s superhero?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Quarex posted:In another nightmarish alternate universe Troika released Temple of Elemental Evil first and then went out of business before Arcanum OR Bloodlines. Truly this is The Darkest Timeline
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines 2: New Vegas
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines 2: New Vegas A WoD video game set in Vegas? I'd buy it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Looking forward to the incoming
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Crusader Kings 3 DLC: Vampire Clans. Does clan Brujah use semisalic primogeniture or elective gavelkind? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Actually they did kind-of-sort-of have this with the old offline CB. Or maybe it's the new one. Masterplan was basically the model I envisioned, essentially. It required a Compendium login to work. It was just that you could use it to scrape and run. They'd have to combine their API with a solid license agreement that scrape-and-running would be prohibited, but I suspect that would be fine with most people - if the content is good, and the access is easy, I believe most people will pay to use it rather than stealing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:Does clan Brujah use semisalic primogeniture or elective gavelkind? Tanistry, but they cannot get the Kinslayer trait. They are, after all, the ones with the clearest sense of "no one fucks with my little brother but me" going on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Apparently there's traced art in the Exalted book.  People falling over themselves over at rpg.net (including industry professionals) to explain why this is not bad and not illegal and actually unavoidable. There's a reason this industry is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
There were people explaining why it's not bad? The only ones I saw were explaining why it happens with unfortunate regularity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
senrath posted:There were people explaining why it's not bad? The only ones I saw were explaining why it happens with unfortunate regularity. Multiple. ''It's not tracing, it's inspiration.'' Here's an example. This isn't tracing, but stealing is stealing.   Someone pointed it out on their KS page, they got this: KS guy posted:Rich's response: "@Chris It really is not. Same theme though, so maybe that is what you mean, but the art style, the imagery, poses, etc, the plant life- no connection." ravenkult fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:Multiple. ''It's not tracing, it's inspiration.'' The positions in the art are the same, but it was drawn from scratch from what I can see. It's clearly an inspired work but it's definitely not illegal in the same way as "Eternal Crane Browses Steam Library Charm" is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine what is on the end of fishgator's stubby little leg/fins/??? that is allowing it to lift itself up like that and its just making me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The positions in the art are the same, but it was drawn from scratch from what I can see. It's clearly an inspired work but it's definitely not illegal in the same way as "Eternal Crane Browses Steam Library Charm" is. I mean, yeah. But it's still stealing. I know the bar is low, but that poo poo's unforgivable in the art world. Or it should be, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:I mean, yeah. But it's still stealing. I know the bar is low, but that poo poo's unforgivable in the art world. Or it should be, anyway. It really isn't. The Biggest sin of the art-piece is that it loses all the good parts from the original like sense of motion and conflict and adds useless crud like extra fins and horns on the Lizards instead. Lizdudes are literally just standing around showing their fancy teeth at each other, instead of attacking!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Drawing your own version of something someone else has drawn is not "stealing." That cover is kind of a weird thing to be making a reference to, but that doesn't make it plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
(That said: there totally is a piece that is composed entirely of plagiarized art arranged around a Poser model.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
The T-Rex/Fishgator art is one thing, but pieces inspired by other things are an industry practice (Also: depending on what kind of spec the artist was given there are only so many ways to draw "T-Rex fights prehistoric megafish"). But there's barely altered poser art, Carjack's Crusader Kings art, and a few other things that people are probably going to lose their jobs over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
someone post the illegal art
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Okay    
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
lmao holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
That's Skarka territory, right there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
It isn't. Using other artwork and copying composition, lighting, positional elements, etc. is not only not stealing, it's what art students are taught to do in art school. There are limits, where your artwork is just someone else's artwork traced-over or photoshopped a bit, but even in that case, "derivative works" are legally protected forms of art expression in some cases. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf The US copyright office posted:To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a Exactly how much addition or change is necessary to reach the minimum of "add new original copyrightable authorship" is sometimes a bit subjective, but looking at the examples posted in this thread, it's been easily met.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Alright, so it's not exactly "stealing". I still think it's not cool to do that. The T-Rex vs. Fish Gator fight was one thing, but this is just taking other pieces of art and slapping them in your picture to save time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
It's not illegal but its still lovely and lazy the one where they copy-pasted art and then filtered it, not the dinos one
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It isn't. Exactly. And for the poo poo that is stolen, like the Exalted poser poo poo, saying it's Skarka level is pretty laughable. This is Skarka level. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Yeah I agree it's pretty lazy, it's art-student level work. Nobody would put that stuff in an art gallery. It's just not illegal, and also not unusual, and stirring up a shitstorm about it isn't really worth it. Yeah Skarka is literally taking a photo or artwork and applying photoshop filters only. I'm not a copyright office examiner but in my opinion it does not reach the level of modification necessary to establish it as a legally-protected derivative work. What's also laughable about Skarka is that he's spent years claiming that doing this artwork is a big drain on his time, when it's obviously a 5-minute photoshop job. e. That bruce lee one is actually a collage, though: he's combined Lee, a dragon motif tattoo onto lee's chest, the background western scene, and the belt/pants piece. That's four different original pieces put together, and collage is a protected art form. See that PDF I linked. I suspect the copyright office would give that particular piece a pass. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
It's definitely not a super big issue, it's just fun to poke at. Also it likely wouldn't even be the slightest bit of an issue at all if they weren't selling the book their lazy art is in. I assume this isn't a free rulebook. Either way, lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
You people are animals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure fair use doesn't extend to person's likeness in your art without permission, as demonstrated by Amy Grant v Dr Strange.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:You people are animals. Yes, but are we T-Rexes or Fish Gators? This is an important question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Yes, but are we T-Rexes or Fish Gators? I'm a shark, suck my dick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:e. That bruce lee one is actually a collage, though: he's combined Lee, a dragon motif tattoo onto lee's chest, the background western scene, and the belt/pants piece. That's four different original pieces put together, and collage is a protected art form. See that PDF I linked. I suspect the copyright office would give that particular piece a pass. It's in a weird territory. Being the first hits from GIS probably helps him more than anything, since that's a licensing clusterfuck. If he'd taken them off istockphoto or whatever without playing the appropriate licensor, he'd probably get nailed to the wall, regardless of the protected status of collage. Sourcing: I work for a bunch of lawyers, including a specialist IP team, who perversely are the ones most likely to intentionally violate copyright law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah I agree it's pretty lazy, it's art-student level work. Nobody would put that stuff in an art gallery. It's just not illegal, and also not unusual, and stirring up a shitstorm about it isn't really worth it. Part of the problem is that in some cases, they paid the artists to do X, and they did Y instead. Or they paid them for wholly original work and they gave back the Crusader Kings thing. Like there's one place where they had tasked an artist to thematically recreate a piece of art from an older book where a Lunar had eaten an entire store's worth of cakes and her Solar mate looked on angrily. The art they got back was hyper-shiny poser art and the lunar was half-naked and crawling under the table for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:a specialist IP team, who perversely are the ones most likely to intentionally violate copyright law. This sounds pretty funny, you mean like they  stuff all the time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
That was the best art in 2e and it pained me to realize that 3e piece was riffing off it.
Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
To clarify 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Did they pay everyone up front? Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
There is never a reason to use Poser art in a professional RPG product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Kurieg posted:Part of the problem is that in some cases, they paid the artists to do X, and they did Y instead. Or they paid them for wholly original work and they gave back the Crusader Kings thing. Like on one hand yes it sucks when you hire on artists and they end up being garbage but they've already taken up time and budget that you can't get back so you end up sorta having to use their garbage... ...But on the other hand managing the artists is literally part of your job, and I dunno of any other sorta big name that has these constant problems. poo poo, I dunno of any indie games that've had these constant issues. The complete inability to manage their artists seem to be a uniquely Exalted problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:11
|
|
