Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
E téma közzétevője a kérdése válaszának jelölt egy hozzászólást.
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
"They" will copy "us" too, you know... but they have no real power over you. Just as much we don't have power over what they do.
I will not be sat on.
you play game.
you take screenshot of the game.
you upload that screenshot somewhere.
congratulations, you have just committed legally defined copyright infringement.
yes, screenshots are already copyright infringement. they are just grey-excluded from the laws about this because it is "culturally accepted" by both involved parties and considered an industry standard. doesn't change that the copyright holder party can still weaponize those laws. it is just that as soon as a commercial aspect is involved, that just gets a steamroll on court, doesn't change that without a commercial aspect that can still end up in court and the chances are not much slimmer for the copyright holder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status
you can sing happy birthday now. everything else, you probably can't.
I like the points you make. It's really annoying that someone "owns" a piece of art. If it's a music, most of the words/ rythms they use are already fragments of what they witnessed during their life, from around them. So it's not really theirs to hold the copyright for it, but it's just a matter of speed, that whoever puts those fragments together faster, own the thing they made by them!
It's very similar to everythign else, like country borders and islands. (Whichever nation gets there first, it's theirs, while it's actually not.)
All false. Screenshots are perfectly fine uses of copyright under fair use doctrine. Same with photographs of copyrighted items. If you want to say discuss the Mona Lisa or do a review on it its fine to include photographs of it. You don't need permission from the copyright holder.
Same with games. Talking about games, discussing them, posting screenshots, its all perfectly fine under fair use. You can read about it here - https://tinytake.com/screen-capture-copyright-violation-or-fair-use/
You really need to actually read and know what fair use is before you start talking because everything your saying is just flat out wrong - https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
It's not a grey area or culturally accepted. It's not weaponized, etc. Fair use encompasses 4 main points and one of them is if the way the images being used are for commercial gain. In this particular case just because a game is copyrighted doesn't mean any picture you could take in the game is copyrighted.
What is more of a grey area is the monetization of screenshots or videos of gameplay. THAT is a legal grey area that could shut down sites like Twitch overnight if video game publishers challenged it. Most publishers are fine with their games being streamed and you can even argue under fair use that. One of the 4 components of fair use is so it can be argued that streaming is beneficial to the product. It's also the basis for this copyright lawsuit so again, its all about the context and how its used
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/youtube-gaming-pewdiepie-fair-use-1.4309312
I'm still going to try it though. If anyone has a problem with me arranging a few pixels or lines in a familiar shape and want to file complaints, then I suppose I'll hear it.
I must be losing it here... Well, I guess I did hear something, so its not allowed as of now.
*spooks*
But this discussion is not over yet, and I know I am contradicting myself here, but that´s because I am still confused! I can understand there is a difference in doing something in a private environment opposed to sharing it online. But there is still the argument of creative freedom and being able to express yourself, and combining different ideas and disciplines.
We're going end up as a bunch of plants, unable to do anything or experiment and discover new things, if this is taken too far.
Bloody lunatics. It´s not like they can bring their art with them after they die. If they even dare to call it art. It´s just dust and dirt put together, yk. It´s nothing special. It´s not even alive.
May just as well pick up a rock, put paint on it, and start worshipping that.
It´s like defending a dead guy from getting killed.
Making guides and fanart is making use of others' material, and while guides might be covered as informational under fair use, fanart (and fanfiction and other fanworks) are either covered as parody under fair use, or if not parody, not covered at all. So basically, this means that it was up to whoever owned the intellectual property, whether they wanted to sue you over it or not.
But then the DMCA happened and then now there's another law that says that websites that carry the content have to take your stuff down pre-emptively if anyone suggests that you may have violated copyright -- instead, you, now, have to dispute the takedown. So this results in a mess, where someone can actually falsely claim to be a copyright holder and troll people over it.
The very nature of a game guide pretty much requires you to be talking about the game, and thus essentially requires you to use material from the game in order to make the guide useful. So I think you should feel okay with posting stuff like screenshots. What you shouldn't do is to post things like:
* reposts of other people's guides (or parts thereof), unless you have permission (you can just link to them) (in the rare cases where you can't, you should aim to be extremely clear that that is not your work and you have no other way of delivering the information). The information itself may be duplicated between guides that cover the same topics, though, in which case you should try to use your own wording.
* entire sections of the game content itself. Maybe an important quote here and there is okay as a header, but stuff like the dialogue of a visual novel (whose primary content is the text itself) is not okay. I guess a rule-of-thumb here is "don't duplicate the game experience itself; just tell other people how to play it". For games (that aren't visual novels), generally, you probably won't run into this problem, since a guide is a completely different format.
Music is a very weird grey area. I think the rule-of-thumb here is usually "it's okay if it's part of gameplay footage", and "it's okay if you're the one playing it" as opposed to the original recording version. This stuff can get weirder if the music itself is licensed from some other source.
Also, some companies/developers request that certain parts of their games not be available in footage (and maybe also screenshots?). This is probably done more for "don't spoil the story" reasons; I think Atlus had something about this regarding one of the Persona games. I really don't know how guides jive with this restriction.
A lot of this stuff (along with vaguely related stuff ranging from romhacks to fangames to digital archiving) to has yet to be tested in actual court cases, so a lot of is just people winging it and figuring things (including legal things) out on the fly, usually based on general ideas of common sense/decency and honor.
Though there's quite an industry of people who make fan-works, including those who do it for money -- from fanartists to cosplayers to musicians and more. Far as I know, this is a legal grey area where it's typical for copyright holders to be okay with stuff as long as it doesn't get out of hand, because after all there's an economic incentive to not antagonize their fans (and there's even a reasonable economic argument that it aids their product's marketing), though when there are conflicts between stuff like official stuff and fan stuff, I'd presume official stuff wins out (e.g. AM2R getting C&D'd), though not without circumstances getting awkward first. (People have speculated that Nintendo intentionally waited to C&D AM2R until after its release, in order to allow it to be released, though AFAIK this hasn't been confirmed; meanwhile, Nintendo did have a direct reason to C&D it, that being their own remake of Metroid II...but then again, Squenix didn't have something in the works when they C&D'd Crimson Echoes, so...)
TL;DR
* it's sort of a mess
* people are winging it, on all sides
* common sense with a mind toward deference to the copyright holder will probably work
* but that doesn't defend you from lawsuits if someone really wants to mess stuff up
Fanart/stories isn't really a parody unless its designed to be. A parody for instance would be spaceballs making fun of star wars and other sci-fi movies. It's technically not allowed and for instance fans were trying to make their own star trek movie and there were a ton of lawsuits stemming over it.
As far as copyright goes there is a copyright on Luke Skywalker, but that copyright doesn't mean people can't dress up as him for fun. Thats covered under fair use.
Now people can't dress up as Luke Skywalker and do TV Ad's for business as that is not covered under fair use.
All that grey area falls under fair use which is why its so important people understand WHAT fair use is. As an example using the costume and cosplay bit - https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/18/costumes-copyrights-can-you-afford-to-wear-that/id=99278/
Those 4 items are key, and in this case #4 would cover it for personal use.
Not so much the DMCA websites already had to do that anyway. The thing is, you can't file such a thing annoynously. They are going to need name address, etc and when its discovered that you impersonated another legal entity well...that's straight up prison time, plus being fined and sued by the person you impersonated, the site you sent the take down notice to and the person who's stuff was taken down.
Right on the first, incorrect on the second. You can make perfectly functional guides without uising any captured art or sound assets from the game in question. Just look at GameFAQs. Now a screenshot is not considered to be use of a game's art asset, it is just a screenshot.
Editing the sprites out of the screenshot and using them in your page design howecver... that's a touchy subject. Generally speaking however, most developers and publishers will not bat an eye at this.
I think this is the problem many laymen get into. There is a fine line between :
- What I can get I can get away with
- What someone allows me to do
- What the law allows me to do.
Many people assume the third when its the first and second in play.
Agreed.
This contradicts your statement below where you imply that a screenshot is fine because it is "not considered to be use of a game's art asset". That doesn't make sense in and of itself but I'll address that later.
> fanart is not actually covered by fair-use
Unless it's parody, as I stated.
But for non-parody fan work, it is as you said -- creators generally allow it as long as it doesn't mess up something else of interest to them.
But the takedowns still have to happen immediately, which is why people have been able to copyright-troll videos they don't like on YouTube, despite not being copyright owners themselves.
The actual copyright holder would have to go after the impersonator, but at that point, the takedown has already occurred, and the copyright holder might simply not mind that it has, or find it worth their time and effort to fight the impersonation, particularly if the impersonator has disappeared into the internet aether, which is a lot easier when it comes to interactions that occur on an international basis.
You're incorrect on the second since "material" need not be visual or audio artwork; copyrightable material includes names of characters and places and other items, as well as design concepts. In addition, screenshots are also copyrightable material, even if they may not specifically count as "art assets" in the sense of reusability of "assets" for design purposes; they are still considered a part of the work.
A guide could be written using vaguely language alluding to certain types of interactions, but it would not be very useful. One could say "use your party lead's ultimate ability to finish off the boss", but it'd be far more informative to say "use Cloud's Limit Break to finish off Jenova Birth".
That said, the reason screenshots tend to be allowed is because such use makes sense for the informational purpose of the guide. Using sprites/models (what some people might call "assets" in a stricter sense of the term) for other work can be iffier because that's often using the assets for a separate creative process, not an informational one.
Furthermore, there are some cases where publishers/developers have objected to people sharing even screenshots of certain parts of the game. It is not yet clear how enforceable such objections are, though in these cases I'd say that it'd probably be prudent to wait at least a few years after the game's release to do so.
There's an additional dimension to this with regards to the law: the law may perhaps exist to permit but not require a copyright holder to intervene in a copyright violation. So it may be possible for a certain thing to "violate" copyright law with the de facto blessing of the copyright holder simply by their turning a blind eye to it -- rather than requiring enforcement. (This is noticeably different from how trademarks legally require enforcement.)
This is in fact essentially how the system works right now, but just with a lot of potential hiccups and uncertainty in many cases.
Remember there is "Copyright" and then there is "Trademark". Copyright is mostly about who is able to make COPIES of something which is copyrighted. While a Trademark is mostly about using something which is trademarked.
A game character can be both trademarked and copyrighted. Trademarked in the word about, for example, the concept what the character is/look like. And then copyrighted as in who can copy it and use it, aswell.
Almost all copyrighted and trademarked situations are unique and extremely hard to give a sweeping statement about. The best thing someone can do, by my recommendation anyways, is to consult a local lawyer about their OWN issue. They can even be free depending on the issue.
In short, don't try and understand the rules by looking at one situation. See what you need help with and go from that. :D
Sorry but that is false. Both are basically the same thing and just differ based on the type of content being protected, how long the protection lasts, and the steps to register for protection - https://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-copyright-trademark-3218.html
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright
In the case of this discussion Trademark doesn't really apply as the content we are discussing falls under the Copyright category.
A trademark would be the Coke brand for instance, or the Nike brand.
Also see - https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
Copyright includes derivative works based on the copyright as well as copies of the original item.
The actual copyright holder would have to go after the impersonator, but at that point, the takedown has already occurred, and the copyright holder might simply not mind that it has, or find it worth their time and effort to fight the impersonation, particularly if the impersonator has disappeared into the internet aether, which is a lot easier when it comes to interactions that occur on an international basis.
You're incorrect on the second since "material" need not be visual or audio artwork; copyrightable material includes names of characters and places and other items, as well as design concepts. In addition, screenshots are also copyrightable material, even if they may not specifically count as "art assets" in the sense of reusability of "assets" for design purposes; they are still considered a part of the work.
A guide could be written using vaguely language alluding to certain types of interactions, but it would not be very useful. One could say "use your party lead's ultimate ability to finish off the boss", but it'd be far more informative to say "use Cloud's Limit Break to finish off Jenova Birth".
That said, the reason screenshots tend to be allowed is because such use makes sense for the informational purpose of the guide. Using sprites/models (what some people might call "assets" in a stricter sense of the term) for other work can be iffier because that's often using the assets for a separate creative process, not an informational one.
Furthermore, there are some cases where publishers/developers have objected to people sharing even screenshots of certain parts of the game. It is not yet clear how enforceable such objections are, though in these cases I'd say that it'd probably be prudent to wait at least a few years after the game's release to do so.
There's an additional dimension to this with regards to the law: the law may perhaps exist to permit but not require a copyright holder to intervene in a copyright violation. So it may be possible for a certain thing to "violate" copyright law with the de facto blessing of the copyright holder simply by their turning a blind eye to it -- rather than requiring enforcement. (This is noticeably different from how trademarks legally require enforcement.)
This is in fact essentially how the system works right now, but just with a lot of potential hiccups and uncertainty in many cases. [/quote]
And the copyright strike can be challenged on Youtube but yes the takedown will occur since the matter is considered to be in dispute. When the dispute is resolved. The material can and usually is reinstated if the challenge was successful.
When matters are challenged, names and legal documents have to start getting submitted and thats where impersonation can no longer continue. That creates a paper trail.
In the context of a guide the matter is considered to be in the same vein as reviews or reference.
They can be copyrighted but thats where the law gets real funny. They can be copyrighted by the person who took the screenshot., since the screenshot can be seen as a performance or artistic staging.
This is why two musicians can perform the same song and each can hold copyright on their respective performances. It's why a photo of the Mona Lisa or other painting is considered to be a seperate work of art from the original provided that it shows intent of incorporation and not duplication.
In the case of a guide, it cann be deemed to be illustrative in nature.
The objections hodl up as too many leaked details can be seen as giving away key information and ergo potentially damaging the sales. This is why movie reviewers tend to take great care not to reveal key points and details in their reviews ifd its within a week or month of the movie's release.
And that falls under 'What I can get away with' or 'what someone allows me to do'. If the original ciopyright holder is unaware of the violation, then they can't do anything about it can they? Or in the latter, they may know about it and simply deem it, eitherm, beneficial, harmless, or not worth making a fuss over.
Which goes back to the point. People who have little direct udnerstanding of these laws tend to assume the latter of the three as opposed to the first or second and doing so can put you in for a rude awakening when the copyright holder learns of the infringement and takes action, or deems it damaging, harmfuil, and./or very much worth their time to smack down.
Take the game "Them Fightin' Herds"
But before matters are challenged, the video is already taken down, and so on. Also, challenging matters over the internet is not the easiest thing -- particularly if the entity is in another country.
Indeed, that's why I noted that they would make sense as fair use as informational resources.
The copyright for a piece of music rests with the composer, while the copyright for the performance rests with the performer. In most cases where we have the performer differing from the composer, it's common that either the composer is long dead and the composition is in public domain, or the composer has assigned an applicable right to usage to an entity that can allow the performer, or the composer just doesn't mind it being performed. But I'm curious to see whether someone can get away with, say, primarily performing piano arrangements of Lady Gaga songs, for pay, without paying her royalties. I don't think it's possible, at least if the pianist is sufficiently high-profile, but I'm not sure.
(Similar comments apply to the visual arts. The Mona Lisa's painter is long dead, but I'm not sure how cleanly one can profit off of photographs of paintings by still-living painters without some sort of permission on the painters' part.)
Yeah, in that case it's reasonably fair use.
Well yeah, it makes sense why they'd do it; I'm just not sure how enforceable they are, as a practical matter.
(OTOH it is kinda annoying how social media is everywhere and jumps on everything these days.)