Legal dilemma; "I certify that I created this artwork"

[AustrAlien2010]

This may either be a very complicated or a very simple dilemma, and I hate to bother you with it, but:

If I make and save a file from the wallpaper image that's attached to my Steam trading card, and upload the file as an artwork on this Steam profile, checking the checkbox which says: "I certify that I created this artwork" could that be cause for a legit report of this artwork or it´s removal from the game´s artwork hub?

Would I be allowed to send this file to another if it is not?


Thanks in advance to anyone who understands this dilemma, or agrees to share insight on it.

[Γαῖα]

Corbian

What your arguing is percieved importance. The problem with perception as any good art forger will tell you is a matter of perspective for quite a few reasons. At the end of the day if there is no smoking gun as so to speak, the reliance to win is based on the balance of probability on the accusers part, thats how the law works and why nothing is clear cut when played on those odds.

[Seraphita]

Or we could just post artwork we actually make and if they use anything that actually exist, just credit the right people and be done with it. I am sure this topic doesn't need to be complicated.

[Black Blade]

Corbian

I do not see any quote on that site
Will you like to point out what you referring to?

Can you take photos inside all museums in your country ? I don't see the diving ! That's related to the example you explained about (illegitimate) photos of famous people : there's things we're generally allowed to do in the real world that then become very hard, or impossible to do in the virtual one, and among the most common answers are "that's the technic" or "that's the copyright". About the latter, generally there's no explanation of why "that's not" in the real world (like I was saying, exchanging the cards, second-hand market, pinning cards or stickers on your phone which is seen by everyone, and the like...).
I don't remember reading anything forbidding to take photos of my screen (unlike at the entrance of the museums), but it may be written in small letters somewhere I don't remenber... (should I search for it ?) And if it's allowed, what would be the difference between a real photo and a screenshot like AustrAlien2010 was willing to take ? And if it's disallowed, why we can do it with real cards ? I don't understand.

Well some places you can, some places from what I remember they don't allow because the flash harm the image (you are allowed to take without flash)
Beside that not allowing to take photos may be related to other stuff, like someone trying to photo the security or trying to get a really good image for making a fake copy, and not becouse copyrights at all

Well, going back to the link[www.copyrightuser.org] you posted some days ago, there's a quoted illustration on the top. That's an off-topic quote, there to illustrate not 'what is a quote', but 'what may be a quote in the situation of a review'. There is no real review (only an explanation of what may be one), so that wouldn't be a quote for you ('coz it's "just because they want"), except they were willing to show a quote to illustrate so they quoted it anyway (but they may had quoted nothing, and still illustrated the same way, so there's really a quote). There's a paradox, isn't it ? They do different from what you say.
Same for "I don't think its use fits" : you already said similar things multiple times, but not why you're thinking that, someone reading you will easily infer you don't plan to do it, but not if there is any 'rational reason' behind your choice. I don't question your choices !
"just because you want" is like when I told you, you cutted the first point of your link at the comma, reading only what is after. I don't think you paid enough attention to the fifth point, and to the concluding quote (which is not giving clues, but still instructive). You found that site (I wasn't knowing it even if a UK one, not a worldwide law, but there's other "fair uses" in other places).
About the cards, I've checked, there are cards with the game logo, so "embodied acknowledgement" ; and there's a comment field to use when uploading for when there's image with no logo. Don't overlook the example they took in the end of point number one ("showing a whole film", disallowed), it may be a relevant comparison in some situations, but irrelevant in others. I've did my best to explain how it can be winding :Windmill: to find what is relevant or not, but no answer about that. ...? (nothing 'against' you)

Well first of all they are talking about it there, and it is given as an exsample on the image it self, the reason for it been there is it self not just becouse you want something looking nice on your profile again remain the same

I am working here from guesses as much as you, but from all I can see about the Right to Quote, its really not relvant here as much as I can understand it

[Corbian]

@ Γαῖα

Origineel geplaatst door Γαῖα:

What your arguing is percieved importance. The problem with perception as any good art forger will tell you is a matter of perspective for quite a few reasons. At the end of the day if there is no smoking gun as so to speak, the reliance to win is based on the balance of probability on the accusers part, thats how the law works and why nothing is clear cut when played on those odds.

‘Percieved importance’, there is something like that in what I've said, yet I'll maybe not personally endorse every conclusion issued from such a short expression, but that's mostly a better direction than looking only at the ‘percentage amount’ of modification or quotation. Smoking gun or not, my concern in less about the conclusions arisen from court cases, and more about what people may freely do day-to-day. Having jurisprudences build upon a 'percentage amount' looks like a clear idea increasing the chances someone knows for sure what he may do or not, with the drawback it may allow too much reuses cases from the authors' point of view. On the opposite you'd not be fully untrue saying 'perceived importance' is clear as a snowy sky, when looked at from the analysis of past jurisprudences which are, as you said, closely related to specific situations and, as I said, complex to re-apply to different situations. Those cases are most often about commercial reuses/derivatives/modifications/and the like, less about what people are doing for example on social networks or in the real world. As a consequence, that's a usable and everyday used way of thinking, and that's where the right to quote is re-creating some of the ‘juridical certainty’ you're pointing the lack : when comparing both worlds, there's something like a general willness to make them as distant as two planets, and maybe/probably you wouldn't had tought about a courtcase if the OP had would to stick a printed card on his luggage. You've written some lines on the meaning of the context, that's also something to include inside the 'perceived importance' idea : as of today, I feel people are quite discouraged to appropriate themselves things they would take in the real world without thinking twice and without being worried about, even if it varies by the situations. To sum this and that, I'd say memes are easy to spread, few are made with prior consent of the original rights owner ; and with the card image on your Steam profile, why shall one not do it ? I feel this question is uneasy to sort with the idea fair uses/practices are allowed, if you look at the cartoons, you will see so many copyrighted cute animals that someday we will run out of cute animals to draw by being too strict evaluating what is unfair.

@ Zero

Origineel geplaatst door Zero:

Or we could just post artwork we actually make and if they use anything that actually exist, just credit the right people and be done with it. I am sure this topic doesn't need to be complicated.

I would ask for a disambiguation : by ‘crediting’, do you mean ‘giving credits’ (as in telling who did an artwork you reused), or ‘paying credits’ (as in buying a patent's licence to use in your software) ? And who's the ‘right people’ : artwork author or rights owner ?

@ Black Blade

Origineel geplaatst door Black Blade:

I do not see any quote on that site
Will you like to point out what you referring to?

The colorful picture on the very top, and Lord Denning's words in the penultimate part.

Origineel geplaatst door Black Blade:

Well some places you can, some places from what I remember they don't allow because the flash harm the image (you are allowed to take without flash)
Beside that not allowing to take photos may be related to other stuff, like someone trying to photo the security or trying to get a really good image for making a fake copy, and not becouse copyrights at all

No, seeing how tiny can be a camera, someone willing to gather visual informations about the security will most probably succeed no matter of any photo ban ; this is needing ‘electronical detectors’ to be avoided.
Yes, you're probably allowed to make copies of historical canvas provided you don't claim your copies are the original genuine pictures. That's a type of art by itself, and those copy-painters are selling their copied-paintings.
I wasn't pointing thoses directions, but the fact museums are often telling you if you're allowed to or not even before you think about it. There are also on the net sites that clearly say what you may do or not, for example sites with photographs selling high-res photos, with free-to-see low-res ones.
A pack of posts ago this thread was about asking permission to do something with the card image, that's an easy posture to say ‘go ask for prior permission’ whereas in real there's lesser mountains easier to climb... I'm unsure one may quickly sort who is the person to contact for such a request. If it was inside a video game story, it would/could easily be that arduous quest given by the crafty sphinx, you know the one that gives the achievement nearly nobody has got before a guide was out on Steam !

Origineel geplaatst door Black Blade:

Well first of all they are talking about it there, and it is given as an exsample on the image it self, the reason for it been there is it self not just becouse you want something looking nice on your profile again remain the same
I am working here from guesses as much as you, but from all I can see about the Right to Quote, its really not relvant here as much as I can understand it

If the image on the top wasn't there, their page would have looked a little more bland, and a little less nice. As I said, they may had omitted that picture, and rephrased their very same explanation : so it's untrue to say their image quote is not there to look nice, because they wanted an image for multiple concomitant motivations among which making a nice-looking page. I've already written making something looks nice is a common practice in the real world, but I've forgot to add Steam cards images are not haute couture : making a real copy of those pieces of clothing would be forgery ; on the contrary Steam cards are not made in limited amounts, so what is making you sure that Steam cards are entitled to such a same ‘high level of protection’ that showing one on the profile would be illegitimate ? Wouldn't it be contradicting ending words of the judge (on the site) about ‘proportions’ ? Of course, that courtcase was as old as 1972 (!!!), it may no longer be relevant seeing how the world has evolved since... or else maybe they quoted precisely that because it is still ? Anyhow the case was about ‘criticism or review’, so it's quite not the same idea (already said it's giving no clue about this topic).

[AustrAlien2010]

Origineel geplaatst door Zero:

Or we could just post artwork we actually make and if they use anything that actually exist, just credit the right people and be done with it. I am sure this topic doesn't need to be complicated.

I'm also trying trying to conclude this but I can't, and it already became complicated.

Besides, every work may just as well belong the Lord. People can be so proud about the things they have wrought, giving credit to one another and themselves, yet seem to ignore they have been inspired by the world they see, feel, heard, touched or read about. I think everything is somehow created and inspired by the events that came before it, or some other external thing or muse, in some sense.

Saying that that `I created this artwork´, always seems haughty, from any point of view. Not just legally. Making any such statement a fallacy on it´s own.

Unless of course, you randomly throw some dirt on a wall and call it art.

[AustrAlien2010]

Right... so, I grabbed the Castlevania Anniversary Collection artwork from the game, and posted it on the artwork HUB section, because Konami never made the logo for the Steam library available.

I hope everyone is okay with that? You can use it for your Steam library if you want. If anyone has any sort of problem with that, then let me know, because then I will remove it.

All rights also go to Konami of course. But I don´t know what the company thinks, because I can´t speak with a company. I can only speak for myself.

But at least we can have some artwork there now, instead of just plain text.
I should not have to wait for the company to fix it for me, when I can just fix it myself, right?
I respected their work, I did not made something abominable from it or anything, but my time is also to be respected.

But I can never say I created the artwork, because I would be using tools to create it, tools I am licensed to use, but have not created myself. So I can´t really say I own them.
But I would be a fool if I would not simply do this, you know? I mean why should we all have to wait for something that may never happen, unless you just do it?


Sorry for taking all your time with this thread.

[Kunovega]

Origineel geplaatst door AustrAlien2010:

Unless of course, you randomly throw some dirt on a wall and call it art.

Someone taped a (real) banana to a piece of canvas and called it artwork. It's just a piece of duct tape and a banana and sold it for $120,000

Literally anything can be called art (unfortunately)

Want to know just how worthless that $120,000 artwork is? The owner has to throw away the rotten banana every week and replace it with a fresh banana and new tape. The buyer literally just purchased a blank canvas (worth maybe $40) for $120,000 and tapes their own banana to it every week, forever, after giving the "artist" the money

Art is subjective, and the world is full of insanity

[Nikolay]

I know the topic is old, but since I can't understand I'll ask directly - I edited the Resident Evil 4 Cover Art Background from Steam (you can obtain it from crafting specific badge, or purchase it directly) using Gyphy and etc. to make it as an artwork on my profile, I have also used special effects and I've putted text on it as well. Could this mean something like an copyright claim might happen for me, or I'm safe, and I can use it ?

[Darren]

Origineel geplaatst door Nick:

I know the topic is old, but since I can't understand I'll ask directly - I edited the Resident Evil 4 Cover Art Background from Steam (you can obtain it from crafting specific badge, or purchase it directly) using Gyphy and etc. to make it as an artwork on my profile, I have also used special effects and I've putted text on it as well. Could this mean something like an copyright claim might happen for me, or I'm safe, and I can use it ?

That would be a derivative work, since you didn't have permission from the original copyright owner to create it which means that it may be copyright infringement. The only defense you would have would be that it's acceptable under fair use laws.

However given you've copied the entire image (not a part of it, or created your own screenshot from a game or something) it seems unlikely it would be considered acceptable under fair use laws.

So yeah you are probably vulnerable to a copyright claim against that artwork by the rights holder.

[Nikolay]

Thanks for the response and the heads up.

[Ʀᴀɪᴅxɴ_[稲妻]]

Origineel geplaatst door Etna:

Steam is a commercial platform, you can't upload other people's artworks without their permission.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4506-DGHX-5190
The artwork you post must be your own creation. Do not post the work of other people. Instead, please encourage them to post it.

Really cuz I didn't know this , I thought that it illegal to upload a background that you don't own it

[AustrAlien2010]

Its not allowed. It says right there on the sign. Even if it causes no damage and no loss of income. Its messed up. I should delete all of the artwork, but then its gone forever. Nobody gets any better from that either. I think I'll just keep it up until someone complains about it. I don't see any point in deleting it as long as the artwork is missing, and you can't get it through any normal means, even you wanted to do it the right way.

[Corbian]

Interesting to see this topic still bumping
What about Nintendo and their ROMs ? and also all those games & software called "abandonware" ? Some people made websites to offer those to download and received at least take down notices, without even making a profit from their sites (no ads)...
I think IP rights are a mess to deal with, and it's probably better to ask yourself "why can I do this ?" before doing it, instead of asking yourself "why cannot I do this ?" because like in my example above, IP rights are a special field of rights in which not causing a loss of income is not sufficient to have the right to do something with someone's else intellectual property.
To be honest, it's not only specific to IP rights : it is generally forbidden to trespass into someone's (private) property, even if you cause no damage to it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Largo´s Boat]

My problem is somewhat related to the topic, can't find a better place anyway. So my problem is, I'd like to showcase of a Red Dead Redemption 2 Online character who looks like a character in Hunt: Showdown as resemblance. I would just edit a screenshot from both games side by side to compare.

My question is, may I upload it as Red Dead Redemption 2 artwork? And if I do so, am I breaking either game's copyrights or doing anything illegal altogether? The part that worries me is that there's content from another game, which someone could deem misleading or lying, like in a case where I would release an "RDR2 Artwork" piece which is partly from another game, "Hunt: Showdown". "This thing does not exist in RDR2". I just wouldn't like to receive a community ban by a complete accident.

And may I certify such artwork as my "own"? Yes the two glued together screenshots showcase is made by me but as I have made clear they contain material from two games. I just haven't made any artwork before, yet I'd like to try and make some. I'm just worried I end up unnoticeably breaking some rules in the progress.

[AustrAlien2010]

As far as I know, if there is an issue with something you post, they can simply remove it. I doubt that what you describe here is an issue.