Steam community/artwork rules? selling/claiming owner of "public" art?

[weelak]

So a friend of mine wanted a "custom steam profile" and i was looking some profiles styles on steam, and i noticed that a lot of people use animate artworks, and when i was searching for how to do it i came across a lot of "artists" selling (literally) this arts for you to put in your profile, and all like its a market with their rules and "owner rights", all inside the steam community (i thought commerce was not permitted there).

My question here is very simple, they claim that if you take some of this arts and "reup" then to use on your profile you are violating the steam rules and they will report you.
But how is that possible when they are literally taking FREE (fair use) finished art from "google", and then profiting with then by making sub-products, all probably without consent from the original creator?
I mean, how can they claim ownership of an art that was not make by then just by editing it? if by just editing a image from a "public source" they can do that, can be not make the same thing with their finished product to?
The point is: or no one can do it, so they do not have rights to sell this or claim ownership in case some one else uses or modify it.
Or both can do it, since they didn't make the original art to.

I search in steam rules but found no clear explanation to this, so i hope i can get a official answer here or where to found it.

EDIT: Please just conclusive answers, don't make reasoning that me or others already said.
And stay attached to the example i give, exact like i describe it.

[Chompman]

It really depends if the content falls under fair use for what the original work was based on or not or if they had gotten permission to use it for their own creation.

In most cases if they do not have permission then they do not actually own it even with the small modifications they have done however usually the original owner does not know it's being used like this or it can be near impossible to know who did the original work to get permission.

If it bothers you this much the only thing you can do really is message the owner of the original artwork for each image and inform them of this as only they can file a claim as steam cannot verify stolen artwork like that.

[weelak]

引用自 Chompman：

It really depends if the content falls under fair use for what the original work was based on or not or if they had gotten permission to use it for their own creation.

In most cases if they do not have permission then they do not actually own it even with the small modifications they have done however usually the original owner does not know it's being used like this or it can be near impossible to know who did the original work to get permission.

If it bothers you this much the only thing you can do really is message the owner of the original artwork for each image and inform them of this as only they can file a claim as steam cannot verify stolen artwork like that.

The part that bother me the most and the "main" reason i asked, its not because they are using the art itself; But that they claim that if other people use that edit-art they are violating they "copyright" or "private owner".
For me that's the pure definition of hypocrisy, take some one art, edit and then sell; Then when some one take this sub-product you create you want to have copyright and claims on it.
The same way they found the original art in the google i can found this "gifs" they made.
Not to mention the part of their profiting, what is undoubtedly not a fair use.

What i really want to know is, if i use this 'gifs' for something on steam, will steam side with then or not.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

If they file a DMCA claim, they have to provide proof. If sufficient proof is given, Valve will side with the user who claimed it.

[Chompman]

引用自 weelak：

The part that bother me the most and the "main" reason i asked, its not because they are using the art itself; But that they claim that if other people use that edit-art they are violating they "copyright" or "private owner".
For me that's the pure definition of hypocrisy, take some one art, edit and then sell; Then when some one take this sub-product you create you want to have copyright and claims on it.
The same way they found the original art in the google i can found this "gifs" they made.
Not to mention the part of their profiting, what is undoubtedly not a fair use.

What i really want to know is, if i use this 'gifs' for something on steam, will steam side with then or not.

If they file a claim with enough proof for steam to accept then yes they can get it removed from your profile and you will have to deal with the consequences or file a counter claim but simply finding the artwork would not be proof to use.

[weelak]

引用自 Chompman：

If they file a claim with enough proof for steam to accept then yes they can get it removed from your profile and you will have to deal with the consequences or file a counter claim but simply finding the artwork would not be proof to use.

Well but then we return to the start point, because they made the animation but not the art; If an edition is proof enough i can just do the same and edit their "work".
That's why i want an official answer, otherwise this is going to be just us speculating.

[wuddih]

you really expect Valve to state something official to a legal matter? wont happen. everything that they could state, can and will be used against them in any possible future.

and dont get the wrong idea that it is hard to nuke user generated content on Steam via DMCAs.

"enough proof" = mostly correctly filled out DMCA form with data that does seem to be correct.

Valve might investigate on actual monetized content on Steam(store, monetized ugc), they will for sure not blink any eye at some picture some pleb uploaded, they will just nuke it if any reasonable DMCA rolls in.

[Chompman]

引用自 weelak：

引用自 Chompman：

If they file a claim with enough proof for steam to accept then yes they can get it removed from your profile and you will have to deal with the consequences or file a counter claim but simply finding the artwork would not be proof to use.

Well but then we return to the start point, because they made the animation but not the art; If an edition is proof enough i can just do the same and edit their "work".
That's why i want an official answer, otherwise this is going to be just us speculating.

It's not for steam to have a official stance on this as all they can do is deal with dmca claims as the law states and they have to follow it.

Anything outside of it would have to be done by individuals who need to inform original owners of the artwork and for them to protect their art through various means.

[weelak]

引用自 wuddih：

you really expect Valve to state something official to a legal matter? wont happen. everything that they could state, can and will be used against them in any possible future.

and dont get the wrong idea that it is hard to nuke user generated content on Steam via DMCAs.

"enough proof" = mostly correctly filled out DMCA form with data that does seem to be correct.

Valve might investigate on actual monetized content on Steam(store, monetized ugc), they will for sure not blink any eye at some picture some pleb uploaded, they will just nuke it if any reasonable DMCA rolls in.

I am not expecting valve to do something "legal", i am expecting at least a moderator to talk about the common "rule" they use for this.

Well, you kind said what i already think; but i rly want a more conclusive answer for the specific case i mentioned above.

引用自 Chompman：

引用自 weelak：

Well but then we return to the start point, because they made the animation but not the art; If an edition is proof enough i can just do the same and edit their "work".
That's why i want an official answer, otherwise this is going to be just us speculating.

It's not for steam to have a official stance on this as all they can do is deal with dmca claims as the law states and they have to follow it.

Anything outside of it would have to be done by individuals who need to inform original owners of the artwork and for them to protect their art through various means.

I know how the DMCA works, i just want to know the interpretation about the artworks inside the steam. Like, they will ignore that the person used another artist image as base for their work and then ban the person anyway? or they will validate both as fair use...

[Darren]

引用自 weelak：

引用自 wuddih：

you really expect Valve to state something official to a legal matter? wont happen. everything that they could state, can and will be used against them in any possible future.

and dont get the wrong idea that it is hard to nuke user generated content on Steam via DMCAs.

"enough proof" = mostly correctly filled out DMCA form with data that does seem to be correct.

Valve might investigate on actual monetized content on Steam(store, monetized ugc), they will for sure not blink any eye at some picture some pleb uploaded, they will just nuke it if any reasonable DMCA rolls in.

I am not expecting valve to do something "legal", i am expecting at least a moderator to talk about the common "rule" they use for this.

Well, you kind said what i already think; but i rly want a more conclusive answer for the specific case i mentioned above.

引用自 Chompman：

It's not for steam to have a official stance on this as all they can do is deal with dmca claims as the law states and they have to follow it.

Anything outside of it would have to be done by individuals who need to inform original owners of the artwork and for them to protect their art through various means.

I know how the DMCA works, i just want to know the interpretation about the artworks inside the steam. Like, they will ignore that the person used another artist image as base for their work and then ban the person anyway? or they will validate both as fair use...

So the original work is copyrighted to the owner.

The edited work is copyrighted to the person that edits it because that makes a derivative work.

If the editor has permission all is good nobody is violating anything. if the editor doesn't have permission and isn't inside fair use the edited work is violating the copyright of the original work.

if you edit the edited work without permission you are violating the copyright of the editor with you new derivative work that you have copyright on.

Steam can't do anything about the initial edited work unless the original owner complains indicating they don't have permission (because they might).

[weelak]

引用自 Darren：

So the original work is copyrighted to the owner.

The edited work is copyrighted to the person that edits it because that makes a derivative work.

If the editor has permission all is good nobody is violating anything. if the editor doesn't have permission and isn't inside fair use the edited work is violating the copyright of the original work.

if you edit the edited work without permission you are violating the copyright of the editor with you new derivative work that you have copyright on.

Steam can't do anything about the initial edited work unless the original owner complains indicating they don't have permission (because they might).

If the editor don't have permission from the original he can't claim copyright of other people that use his edition.

If i use the edited work i am not violating fair use unless i sell it or stop the other people to use claiming a copyright that i don't have.

So steam will be hypocrite and just defend the editor? or will accept my argument that this edition didn't have any right from the very start?

[weelak]

Please if someone else has a answer that is just reasoning and not a conclusion just keep it, what i want is a conclusive answer not reasoning of how the "law" works. (or how should)

[Darren]

引用自 weelak：

引用自 Darren：

So the original work is copyrighted to the owner.

The edited work is copyrighted to the person that edits it because that makes a derivative work.

If the editor has permission all is good nobody is violating anything. if the editor doesn't have permission and isn't inside fair use the edited work is violating the copyright of the original work.

if you edit the edited work without permission you are violating the copyright of the editor with you new derivative work that you have copyright on.

Steam can't do anything about the initial edited work unless the original owner complains indicating they don't have permission (because they might).

If the editor don't have permission from the original he can't claim copyright of other people that use his edition.

If i use the edited work i am not violating fair use unless i sell it or stop the other people to use claiming a copyright that i don't have.

So steam will be hypocrite and just defend the editor? or will accept my argument that this edition didn't have any right from the very start?

Sure he can claim copyright. He has more than enough evidence to prove that it's his derived work. Rechecking the rules he doesn't actually have copyright without permission of the original owner, however since you can't know for sure he doesn't have that permission neither you nor Valve can be sure that his copyright claims aren't legitimate. Odds are Valve will err on the side of removing the artwork, and likely not restore it merely because you say without any proof, "He stole it first."

Should you pursue it to court you'd find out one way or the other whether this person doing the editing actually has permission for his derived work or not (but that might be an expensive lawsuit if it turns out he does).

Also fair use isn't just non-commercial use it also has to do with how much of the work you are using, how it is being used, etc. If you use the whole image it's likely not going to be considered fair use.

引用自 weelak：

Please if someone else has a answer that is just reasoning and not a conclusion just keep it, what i want is a conclusive answer not reasoning of how the "law" works. (or how should)

Unfortunately nobody can be conclusive, we can indicate how Valve is likely to react but two bits of information are impossible to know:
* Does this guy actually have permission, in which case yeah you are definitely going to have problems (at least the DMCA, and if they are petty enough an actual lawsuit)
* If he doesn't have permission how much effort is Valve going to put into this, the low effort solution is to uphold the DMCA until evidence is provided conclusively showing he doesn't have permission. The high effort solution would be for them to approach the original owner to confirm whether or not he granted permission. I find it dubious that a company would do that high effort solution but Valve might surprise me.

[weelak]

引用自 Darren：

Sure he can claim copyright. He has more than enough evidence to prove that it's his derived work. Rechecking the rules he doesn't actually have copyright without permission of the original owner, however since you can't know for sure he doesn't have that permission neither you nor Valve can be sure that his copyright claims aren't legitimate. Odds are Valve will err on the side of removing the artwork, and likely not restore it merely because you say without any proof, "He stole it first."

Should you pursue it to court you'd find out one way or the other whether this person doing the editing actually has permission for his derived work or not (but that might be an expensive lawsuit if it turns out he does).

Also fair use isn't just non-commercial use it also has to do with how much of the work you are using, how it is being used, etc. If you use the whole image it's likely not going to be considered fair use.

I think you misunderstood some parts here.

First, we are talking about arts that has "normal public usage", that the autor has no problem in you using for your profile, wallpaper or so on, and on max they want you to put the link of the original when use it.
What by signal is a pretty common (like everywhere) use of the "fair use". Some one being punished by using a entire image in a profile or other personal use its VERY uncommon (otherwise everyone would be f***).

Second:

"Copyright does not apply to works in the public domain; words, names, slogans or short phrases (those may have protection in trademark law); blank forms; works that are not original"

Note "work that are not original".
Something like, if you take a batman image from google and repaint him, you DO NOT have any kind of copyright rights on it. You still CAN NOT sell it, and even if you post in "public space" (like a steam public profile for instance), and some person search in google and found your image and use it (just like you found the original); you can claim NOTHING legally because what you have is a sub-work without any copyright of the original.

If some one has to be legal problems would be the person selling the sub-product that the original owner put it for "free" in the web, its like selling a logo with images that you didn't create.

So to conclusion, in this situation if you use any of pictures in your personal profile you will not have legal problems. I have no doubts about legal issues or something like that, my problem is that steam don't make it clear how they judge this kind of case internally.

引用自 Darren：

Unfortunately nobody can be conclusive, we can indicate how Valve is likely to react but two bits of information are impossible to know:
* Does this guy actually have permission, in which case yeah you are definitely going to have problems (at least the DMCA, and if they are petty enough an actual lawsuit)
* If he doesn't have permission how much effort is Valve going to put into this, the low effort solution is to uphold the DMCA until evidence is provided conclusively showing he doesn't have permission. The high effort solution would be for them to approach the original owner to confirm whether or not he granted permission. I find it dubious that a company would do that high effort solution but Valve might surprise me.

Like i said, your reasoning is correct but you are overestimating the situation, we are talking about regular images that everyone use, and that they probably can't really claim "copyright" by any little thing, because most of then are "fan-arts" of already existing creations.
So it should be VERY clear that their owners don't mind if you use for a profile or some other trivial matters; this should be proof enough that if someone is making something wrong is the person who make profit of this (inside steam by the way, what is forbidden as far i know), and still claims "ownership" for this reason (again, i am talking about this from inside steam and not as a legal problem).

And really, i bet none of then have permissions, it would be literally impossible to make contact with every random artist within ~~one week~~; some ones that don't even log-in more on the respective sites... Much less share a penny with then.

EDIT: And when i say "have permissions", i mean permission to make profit and restrict use, and not for trivial/personal use.
Being realistic, 99.9999% of artwork on steam are not posted by their creators.

[J4MESOX4D]

Keeping it simple; the original creator can claim ownership of their creation through DMCA unless you can provide evidence you now own it. In terms of good will, if you did purchase the artwork, that doesn't mean you should copy, duplicate and resell the creation - you purchased a piece of artwork for yourself and your own use.

As long as you don't do this, there is no reason why the original creator should come back to DMCA something they sold you.

[weelak]

引用自 J4MESOX4D：

Keeping it simple; the original creator can claim ownership of their creation through DMCA unless you can provide evidence you now own it. In terms of good will, if you did purchase the artwork, that doesn't mean you should copy, duplicate and resell the creation - you purchased a piece of artwork for yourself and your own use.

As long as you don't do this, there is no reason why the original creator should come back to DMCA something they sold you.

..I know that.. but that is not the situation. I already described and explained that above.