Is this considered copyright material?

[wynautastronaut]

Hi all, I would like to use some sprites in my game by this artist. On that page, after the wolf and the tiny animals spritesheets there are some Carbuncles, then there are some Eevee looking sprites.  

Are these Carbuncle and Eevee looking spirites okay to use? They are obviously inspired by Final Fantasy's Carbuncle's design and the pokemon Eevee, but this is made by someone else and it's not an obvious rip. Any help?

 

[xcom]

IF they where made by someone and not a rip from a game, and IF you have the creator's permission, and IF your game is a "for fun" game and not a "for profit" game.  Then you shouldn't have a problem.

IF they are a modified game rip, and IF you do not get the person's permission, and IF you do plan on selling your game.  Then there might be problems. 

My page translator is not working at the moment, so not able to read the page right now.  The little fox things do look a bit like Evee's.  Although my niece looked at them and thought it was a Corgi when she saw it.  If it wasn't for the fluffy tail, they could be called that too.  Not sure about the FF Carbuncle sprite though.  Looks more like some generic lizard/dragonling thing to me. 

 

[Zeriab]

Even in the first case the sprites may not be okay to use.

 

[odinnightowl]

looking at the site , as far as i can tell there is nothing against the terms there to use it. also if you refer to the dragon loking spirtes as carbuncles , well i don't see the likeness they just look liek bi-ped dragons to me.

 

[wynautastronaut]

IF they where made by someone and not a rip from a game, and IF you have the creator's permission, and IF your game is a "for fun" game and not a "for profit" game.  Then you shouldn't have a problem.

IF they are a modified game rip, and IF you do not get the person's permission, and IF you do plan on selling your game.  Then there might be problems. 

My page translator is not working at the moment, so not able to read the page right now.  The little fox things do look a bit like Evee's.  Although my niece looked at them and thought it was a Corgi when she saw it.  If it wasn't for the fluffy tail, they could be called that too.  Not sure about the FF Carbuncle sprite though.  Looks more like some generic lizard/dragonling thing to me. 

They do look like Corgi dogs lol. I translated and tried made sense of as much as much as I could. The first ones are clearly titled as Carbuncle in Japanese, and above the Eevee looking ones it says "Designer:" and then someone's name. That's actually why I thought I would ask. I have read the artist terms and my game is free, so I'm not too worried. I would just rather know if I'm clearly in the red. Thanks for the help.

looking at the site , as far as i can tell there is nothing against the terms there to use it. also if you refer to the dragon loking spirtes as carbuncles , well i don't see the likeness they just look liek bi-ped dragons to me.

Not the baby dragon ones, but above them. The dog-rabbit one with the jewel on its head. That's Carbuncle and next to it is the one I'm calling Eevee. There is a translated terms page on this forum and it's okay to use according to the artist. I just don't want people to think I stole those sprites from FF and Pokemon. 

 

[Kes]

One point that comes up time and again - when it comes to using copyright material it makes no difference whatsoever whether your game is free or not.  Using such resources in a free game is still illegal.  The only difference is that the copyright holder might never get to find out, or if they do, the fines (but not the lawyer's fees) are usually smaller.  Having a free game is no defense in law.

 

[wynautastronaut]

ksjp17, that's why I would like to know whether or not they are considered copyright. They are made by an artist who has given permission to use the work, but the design is similar to copyright material. 

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

If the design is very close to a copyrighted material, better stay away to be sure...

 

[slimmmeiske2]

The "Evee" one has written above "Design: Mayo samurai". So personally, I'd think it's okay to use the "Evee" ones, since they're not supposed to be Evee's, but something else. But yeah the other one is definitely meant to be a Carbunkle sprite.

 

[wynautastronaut]

Thank you, Slim. I think I'll do that. 

 

[GrandmaDeb]

One point that comes up time and again - when it comes to using copyright material it makes no difference whatsoever whether your game is free or not.  Using such resources in a free game is still illegal.  The only difference is that the copyright holder might never get to find out, or if they do, the fines (but not the lawyer's fees) are usually smaller.  Having a free game is no defense in law.

Are you saying that 298K's stuff are rips? Or are you responding to a particular statement? (I cannot tell which)


Because making stuff that is LIKE someone's stuff is not illegal or against any copyright, right my friend?

If the design is very close to a copyrighted material, better stay away to be sure...

Why? Will you never have a hero with a dark cape and mask because of Batman? Or any of dozens of other characters?


There is a certain freedom needed for creative expression. The U.S. courts have consistently upheld this position. Stifling creative expression is not the aim of protecting copyright. I made a tree. Can you no longer make a tree? What if mine was light green and 64 by 64. Now can you no longer make a tree? What if mine has a six pixel wide trunk by 30 high? What if yours does too? Are you a COPIER???


(Remember the case of the Barbie doll (groan) A doll with the exact same dimensions is NOT protected. It is a "fashion doll." But the exact shape and design of the distinctive Barbie face cannot be copied.)


Everything in moderation. So the line is not a big fat black line. It is one of judgement and good sense.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Trees are present in nature, that would be very different from a specific work of fiction... The extent of how much it's the same would be a factor I guess. Also, making something based on batman is different than making an exact replica of batman.


Plus I only said, "to be safe". It's far less hassle to just not use something if ur unsure than think about it every passing moment of time...


PS: Just to be clear in case it's not clear on my statement, I didn't view the linked site.

 

[Lunarea]

Because making stuff that is LIKE someone's stuff is not illegal or against any copyright, right my friend?

Actually, it can be. Things don't have to be identical in order to be considered a breach in copyright. If the works are similar enough, the original author can claim a copyright infringement and the courts may side with them.

Copyright is there to protect the original author. It's there to prevent someone from just copying their work line-by-line, make a tiny change and be able to claim it as their own (then make a profit from it). It's frustrating that there isn't a black and white line, sure, but there's no elegant solution or formula that makes all instances of copyright infringement super easy to identify.

While no one should be able to copyright common ideas like trees, specific uses of ideas can be copyrighted. No one can copyright a vague term "dark, brooding hero in a cape", but they can copyright a specific interpretation of the idea in the form of Batman. So, a Carbuncle design can be copyrighted and its sprite would be a copyright infringement regardless of the fact that an artist drew it themselves.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't give a definite counsel here. But my rule of thumb is... If I recognize the sprite as XYZ (ex. Carbuncle from Final Fantasy), it's too close to comfort and I don't use it.

 

[mlogan]

Actually, it can be. Things don't have to be identical in order to be considered a breach in copyright. If the works are similar enough, the original author can claim a copyright infringement and the courts may side with them.

Copyright is there to protect the original author. It's there to prevent someone from just copying their work line-by-line, make a tiny change and be able to claim it as their own (then make a profit from it). It's frustrating that there isn't a black and white line, sure, but there's no elegant solution or formula that makes all instances of copyright infringement super easy to identify.

While no one should be able to copyright common ideas like trees, specific uses of ideas can be copyrighted. No one can copyright a vague term "dark, brooding hero in a cape", but they can copyright a specific interpretation of the idea in the form of Batman. So, a Carbuncle design can be copyrighted and its sprite would be a copyright infringement regardless of the fact that an artist drew it themselves.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't give a definite counsel here. But my rule of thumb is... If I recognize the sprite as XYZ (ex. Carbuncle from Final Fantasy), it's too close to comfort and I don't use it.

Although honestly, I don't see why not, if a company can copyright the words "candy" and "saga". I also remember when I was in school, someone copyrighted "Class of 2000" so we could no longer have shirts that said that. Had to use a little star symbol in place of the word "of" to make it legal. Random, I know, but this day and age, common sense does not always prevail in the courts.

 

[Lunarea]

They shouldn't be able to, but yea, sometimes things do get copyrighted when they shouldn't - case of someone not being careful enough at the patent/trademark office, or the copyright document not being specific enough.

Some of those decisions get overturned, though. There was a case at my husband's work where a random company managed to get a copyright on the general idea of measuring things, rather than their specific software, so they went around and tried to muscle people out of the business. The other companies challenged the registration and won, so it turned out alright in the end.

 

[mlogan]

It's a shame what people will do to try to make a bit of money.

Back to the original topic though (sorry for derailing), my general though is, if you have to ask, it's probably best not to use it and to find something original. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Zeriab]

Seems like you are mixing terminology around.

Patents are very much different from copyright, and so is trademarks.

I will assume you are residing in one of the countries that has signed the Berne Convention, since that is like the vast majority of the world.

Copyright happens automatically. You do not have do anything. I believe that requiring formal registration is even prohibited.

What about the US you ask? Yes, they are the odd one out indeed. Not requiring formal registration is very much a sore spot, and probably a big reason for signing very late.

When formal registration is prohibited, what can you do to encourage formal registration anyway? The answer to that question is the copyright registration you may have heard about. Looking at the practical aspects of a court case whether or not you can get attorney fees and statutory damages certainly makes a different, even when they do not in the theoretical realm.

I bet pragmatism is also the reason why foreigners are better protected without a copyright registration than US citizens are.

All that said, my recommendation is still to take care. Asking a lawyer local to your jurisdiction within the field yields the best chance of getting a correct response.

*hugs*

 - Zeriab

 

[Kes]

Are you saying that 298K's stuff are rips? Or are you responding to a particular statement? (I cannot tell which)

Because making stuff that is LIKE someone's stuff is not illegal or against any copyright, right my friend?

I was responding to xcom's remark that 

" IF your game is a "for fun" game and not a "for profit" game"

and merely saying that whether your game is free or not is always irrelevant for whether something is legal or not.

 

[Dragnfly]

The text above your Carbuncle does indeed say Carbuncle (and I agree that it's not close enough to the FF carbuncle and a carbuncle is a normal cryptid, not unique to FF and originating from long before FF as a creature with a carbuncle gem in it's forehead). It also says that they are original designs and that the terms of use of the site must be followed if you use them.

I haven't been able to work through the terms of use yet though. Sorry.

*edit*

Apparently they're mods from First Seed Material and you need to meet their requirements of use too. But their site is gone. I'm not going to look further into this but basically you'll need to hunt for wherever FSM moved to, and get a good translation of both terms of use before you can tell what you're allowed to use them for. Note that, in my experience, a number of Japanese resource sets include odd use terms like "you must follow our Twitter" or "Who is the best Kancolle girl? Answer wrong and you can't use". So really, I'd say try making your own carbuncle. This really isn't worth the trouble.

 

[wynautastronaut]

Thank you for looking into it, Dragnfly. I read the translated terms by the artist I posted, but I don't know anything about this FSM. I wonder if that's what the design credit above the other sprite is. I won't use Carbuncle, but I am using the other one. I'll credit this artist according to his terms, and the artist he credits. If he is reposting mods, I am inclined to believe the original artist allowed for edits and reposts. If not, and they ask me to take it down, I'll just do that.