[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)