Discussion of Politeness

[PK8]

"Where do you draw the line between what is considered an edit and what is considered original" is the question, basically.

 

[Tuomo L]

Should a web designer not get paid either, because he didn’t create the background he was using?

If you'd make a website and copy the background image from www.amd.com you'd be guilty of copyright infringement and if you'd even ask for money for the result, you'd be sued and so would the company that paid you... With certain deliberate violations, you could be subject to criminal penalties carrying massive fines and long prison terms.

So no, the web designer in your example should not be paid as they clearly don't know their profession enough to not do something like that.

 

[GrandmaDeb]

If you'd make a website and copy the background image from www.amd.com you'd be guilty of copyright infringement and if you'd even ask for money for the result, you'd be sued and so would the company that paid you... With certain deliberate violations, you could be subject to criminal penalties carrying massive fines and long prison terms.

So no, the web designer in your example should not be paid as they clearly don't know their profession enough to not do something like that.

Hmmm, I was going to stay clear of drama, myself, but I got sucked in in the end.....

ISTM that this response assumes a few things while making a legitimate point.

Yes, you can get in trouble by misusing copyrighted materials, even backgrounds, textures, and patterns, and incorporating them into your designs.

But I think that Celianna has gone to appropriate lengths to include EB in her credits list and clarify their interest in her materials.

And there are many, many free materials on the internet available with and without credit necessary that we use all of the time. I personally am a resource hoarder (if you haven't noticed =] yet) and a meticulous creditor (as best as I can.)

But there is no replacing skill. Of which I have very little.

I agree that it is tough to draw the line between an edit and original work, and that art has context beyond simple rules like "you copied that." So if I start with an XP lampshade as inspiration - all 20 by 20 pixels of it - and my lampshade is still generally the same shape - how much do I credit? When is "copying" four bits credit-worthy? It gets tricky.

But I have no trouble paying anyone for doing what I cannot or choose not to do. For example, I had been looking for a Modern Tile dumpster for months and Lunarea's set had one. For me to make it - even after seeing her idea and implementation - would take at least an hour of my time; so I have no problem paying less than an hour's wages for her efforts. (plus it was waay better than what I could have managed, lol)

But I think most of the talented artists we see in the RPG Making sites I frequent are well aware of copyright rules, and have very high standards for their original work and associated credits.

 

[amerk]

Bottom line, if EB is okay with her using their resources as a base to create her own, then we shouldn't be spouting accusations.

However, I also agree with PK8. A clear definition of what should be considered an edit versus original is needed; however, that doesn't mean edits can't be sold, assuming you receive permission from the original designer.

Celianna and Lunarea are probably going to be the exception to the rules, whether we like it or not. Whenever new rules come up, it's impossible to go back and retro-fit everything perfectly. All anybody can do is monitor the system going forward.

For me, if something has received more care than a simple recolor, minor size adjustment, a simple/minor tweak, even if it has been frankensprited, it should be okay to post those resources. Actually selling them, though, is a different story, and will probably require permission from the original source.

 

[Mouser]

And this is just a poor strawman altogether. By this logic, simply tracing over a picture is also a practice people deserve to get paid for. When you sell a sprite or a drawing, you are being paid for the end result -- not for the time you put into it. It's not a salaried position.

Actually, that legal precedent was set and confirmed many years ago now when people were selling virtual goods from MMO's on ebay. They aren't being paid for the actual goods, but for the time it takes to acquire them.

@Celiana and Lunarea - You go girls! Keep making and licensing the quality stuff that you have been. There will always be some who get upset, but what you do benefits the "community" far more than what most people have put out. If people don't think your stuff is worth the price, they won't pay it.

You certainly have the right to license your work any way you see fit that doesn't conflict with the license granted to you by EB/Degica.

If you'd make a website and copy the background image from www.amd.com you'd be guilty of copyright infringement and if you'd even ask for money for the result, you'd be sued and so would the company that paid you... With certain deliberate violations, you could be subject to criminal penalties carrying massive fines and long prison terms.

So no, the web designer in your example should not be paid as they clearly don't know their profession enough to not do something like that.

Just for the purpose of this discussion, make the wild and crazy assumption that the web designer has the legal right to use the background - possibly by purchasing the license to it from one of the dozens of portals that exist to sell art, music, textures, etc.. for exactly that purpose. [i was looking through one of them myself for a sound loop the other day - this one had close to 80,000 loops with licenses running between $40-$70 that would cover the sound being used in a commercially resellable product (like a game)]

So if the web designer is using items he has the right to use but didn't create himself, isn't the end web page still his creation?

And can't he then charge a fee for doing that creating?

The answer to both of those is a resounding yes.

Third edit: (I'm on a roll) - If you do not have the right to license your work commercially, then you probably also do not have the right to license your work "for non-commercial use only". You either have the rights to your work or you don't. If you don't, then you either cannot distribute the work at all (or only under pre-existing terms), or cannot put any restrictions on how the work is to be used.

What many people here fail to realize is that "for non-commercial use only" is just as much a legally binding license as "licensed for commercial use for $500" - both licenses depend upon the creator of the license owning the copyright (or having some rights to the work) for their force. If push really came to shove I don't know if a simple recolor could be limited to non-commercial use for someone who has bought the rights to the RTP. But nobody seems to get bent out of shape over that.

Fourth Edit (now I'm just tic'd off): The very fact that the assumption made (and I'm not singling any one person out for this, since several did it) when given the example of "he didn't create the background himself" was "he must not have the right to use it - copyright violation" shows how out of touch you are with the world of commercial development.

Which is fine, to a point. I get that most people here are hobbyists and just screwing around having fun making games. But at least know what you don't know. In the world of "content creation", which game development falls under the umbrella of, anything you need is available for you to use, legally, if you're willing to pay the price. Have you ever heard of "stock footage" in movies? Wondered why the guys jumping out of the airplane in the "war movie flashback" look awfully familiar...

Whether it's video, music, or the tools to make them (ie: game engines or other editors) - they can all be licensed, and it's generally not hard to find what you're looking for, unless you're looking for something very, very specific or very expensive (ie: source license for Unreal Tournament, or a long video segment that will need to be custom acted and recorded).

Back @Cel and Luna - Please don't pull the Steampunk Tiles - they are more than original enough to be creatively yours, and don't leave those of us in a lurch who have started to use them. That goes for the rest of the tilesets you have available as well. That would set a terrible precedent for other people in the community who want to offer RTP compatible tilesets and assets available to license and would end up discouraging people from creating, rather than encouraging it.

 

[Ruby]

Well, I just read every single post on this, and NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE, but:

You ALL are taking EVERYTHING out of line and/or context.

My only response to this, is this: If a person who creates clothing sells her shirt, can she be sued for using cloth that she bought?

 

[Celianna]

There was no need to revise this topic, it's over and done with - me and Luna haven't been discouraged from making and selling our tiles

Closing this.