Discussion A case of stolen Animations? Or just a salty artist?

[Ampersand]

@Ampersand: There's a funny irony with you having a Pokemon Engine in your signature

You're showing your ignorance.

That's not ironic. I'm not selling it for money. I haven't even released it, nor do I currently plan to. It's a pet project. And even if it were even remotely the same situation, it still wouldn't be irony.

You too, @blacklemon. What ignorant and arrogant remarks to make. Also, you're not selling your bad flappy bird ripoff, so there's no issue there within the topic of discussion. As to whether it's infringement, it does look like it is a derivative work -- and not even a mention of a fangame or credit given, you're actually claiming the IP as your own. This would make it very similar to the discussion at hand.

I'm just now realizing that 99% of this forum's members are children, even many of the member's who are well into adulthood. Wild.

A lot of you need some worldly exposure. Not sure why you're all so eager to prove not only a lack of integrity but also a lack of general understanding... All the power to you, regardless.

Say as you wish about what projects I choose to show to the forum, but I work in the industry near Los Angeles as a combat systems specialist for a small studio. I'd love to share more of my less hobby-oriented work, but anything beyond my job title is protected under an NDA and this petty "discussion" (because again, many of you are wrong and opinions don't matter in the face of the law) is not worth chancing my paycheck.

I can actually guarantee that half of the posters in this topic have read exactly zero literature on copyright law.

 

[zendraw]

but the guys that made the pigeon game also just copied only the motion, and not the exact same motion... and that was my point, theyr game is just an inspiration from his animations. and he goes full retard sending an army of people to ruin lives as if they have killed some1.
i dont really care to bring your game into it, its just a more in the face example, perhaps, then the examples i gave with dota. blizzard had every right to not allow dota to exist atall, but no, they let it go and it ended up being 1 of the most playet genres out there, people with vision.
the things you point out about ur game thou are irrelavent, 'gauntlet was 8bit, mine is 16' thats not the point, even you say you are inspired by the game, theres no problem in that, but why is there a problem when some1 else gets inspired by some1 elses work? and the only similarity is the animation motion, of only 2!!!! dances.

like i sayd im all for people to be inspired and creative but lets not be hypocrites and bash others when its convinient for us?

@Ampersand what exactly is ignorrant and arrogant?

 

[Ampersand]

do you people not see how silly it is to defend this 'artist'? ....

If the second artist had any case he wouldn't have removed the animations, he wouldn't have blocked the original artist and acted non-cooperatively, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

So many semantics being thrown around, if you were defending this case in the court of law the judge would've had half of you thrown out by now.

Also, I'm not your dictionary... Those are like sixth grade level vocabulary. That last line sure makes it seem like you're out here baiting too.

This is a bad debate for one to participate if one has no understanding of the discussion at hand, especially if one cannot form logical arguments that does not come from a place of subjectivity or emotion.

Ampersand going on about legal advice with a fan game in their signature seems very hard to take seriously.

I must have missed the part where I released a fan game and claimed all content as my own.

You're kidding me right? You really can't see the difference between that situation and the situation at hand? Because the law does.

Let me say one more time: If you guys would like to discuss the specifics of applicable laws, let's do so. Your opinion of how copyright law works is not how copyright law works.

You guys are clearly missing the point, so let me reiterate: when you use someone else's intellectual property and claim it as your own without expressed consent of the original author it is copyright infringement.

If you read that sentence (which is copyright law as it stands in the U.S.) and think that me posting a video of a private engine that is unreleased in which I do not claim ownership of the graphics assets is copyright infringement, you have no place in this discussion.

The discussion is of facts, not of opinions and morality. Not sure why everyone keeps trying to take it there.

 

[zendraw]

so youve read the book of law and work at a studio, now your all knowing. but in the same time you dont really say anything, your just here to inform about ur superior knowledge of the law and farm likes it seems.
i dont see a standpoint in your comments and you call me and others childish? whats your standpoint?

 

[Ampersand]

so youve read the book of law and work at a studio, now your all knowing. but in the same time you dont really say anything, your just here to inform about ur superior knowledge of the law and farm likes it seems.
i dont see a standpoint in your comments and you call me and others childish? whats your standpoint?

This was hard to read. I'm not sure who's farming here, but it's certainly not me.

I've already made my position clear, and it comes in three parts:
a) my opinion based on available information is that this was infringement and that the original artist had a solid case, but it was most likely that the thief would pull the content (as he did, admitting clear guilt), and
b) our opinions don't matter because the law handles justice for us, not subjective conclusions that arise from a place of emotion, so
c) there is plenty of court precedence set, and as I said it will likely reach an agreement out of court (looks like the thief agreed to pull the content to avoid infringement reports to the iOS/Android store)

This whole thing is over. The thief admitted guilt in his mannerisms and actions, and you guys are still trying to defend him... Carry on if you wish. I, however, will not.

And one more time, so that you guys can stop misleading other members who might not know better: I did not "read the book of law". Every person in the creative space should have a full understanding of creative copyright law in their country, and there are abundant resources available for people to do so. Stop misconstruing it to seem like only a prestigious lawyer can understand copyright law. That is simply not the case.

 

[zendraw]

i can accept the facts that you post, theyr facts. but how do you know its out of guilt? and why do you call them thievs? this is the thing im talking agaisnt and the thing im agaisnt this artist. he sprouted hate for no reason atall, pretty much like the cases where wemen get 'raped' before 10 years and now they post on twitter cus you see they gathered courage, this is just plain hate. if the artist was responsable he wuld have gone to the authorities and reported it and everything wuld have ended as it shuld have, but he did what every sjw does, creating hate bands on the internet so they culd ruin some1`s live.

like i sayd every time, this is not a big deal, the 'big deal' is the artists crybaby attitude. and this is as objective as it can be, no feelings or emotions. sending hate hordes SHULD be illegal and punishable.

edit: and i dont see the point of you nitpickin my way of typing? english is not my mother language nor have i studied it.

 

[Ampersand]

like i sayd every time, this is not a big deal, the 'big deal' is the artists crybaby attitude. and this is as objective as it can be, no feelings or emotions. sending hate hordes SHULD be illegal and punishable.

I don't think calling someone "crybaby" is being objective. The original artist called him out, and that was the opportunity for the second artist to admit guilt. He however did not, he chose to block the original artist, keep the animations up, and otherwise try to avoid working with the original author. So he got exactly what he deserved. If the thief was not guilty as you claim, he had plenty of channels to go about suing the original artist for slander (is Twitter considered print?) and suing for potential lost profits due to the defamation. But he was guilty, so he had no channels to take aside from ending the content theft.

I said it earlier in the thread, and I'll say it 'til I die: Honest men don't hide.

pretty much like the cases where wemen get 'raped' before 10 years and now they ****post on twitter cus you see they gathered courage

Where's the door? Great, I'll show myself out, thanks.

 

[zendraw]

calling people out is not the way to go, like i sayd it simply creates hatered and theyr reason for blocking him is most likely to avoid that, theyr a company or somthing, im not sure. hate hording doesnt resolve nothing, it simply destroys one`s personal life. in the end like you sayd the court resolves the problem, so the artist is actually no better, but actually worse since he wants harm to come to those people with his actions and there was no way that harm culd get to the artist by them simply copying a motion of 2 animations.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

@blacklemon: I already explained to you how the copied animations hurt the original author. They dilute his brand and devalue his work. He's famous for these animation motions he creates.

You're saying "who cares if one company stole his animations for a game? It won't hurt him much." Sure, that's probably true. But what happens if a bunch of people start tracing his animations? If they get away with it, his art won't be unique anymore, and he'll lose his following.

Copyright law exists for a reason. When someone steals something, you can't get mad at the person who was stolen from for fighting back. If a guy ran up to you and stole $5 out of your hand, would you not say anything? Would you be a "crybaby" for trying to get your money back? No, of course not. That's ridiculous. Please think about my argument here. I don't think you understand how valuable intellectual property is.

 

[zendraw]

ok i get that but i cant support his way of dealing with this.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

ok i get that but i cant support his way of dealing with this.

Fair enough. It's very insulting to have someone steal from you, though, especially if you've spent thousands of hours learning your art. I can tell Keke has been drawing a long time - if the Pigeon Pop people liked his art, they should've hired him for a fair rate, or they should've commissioned his animations.

Them just taking it without asking is basically saying "your art isn't worth paying for, even though we're going to make money with it." It's incredibly disrespectful, so I understand why he called them out.

I think he might have even contacted them before making it public. He said they blocked him when he asked them to take his art out of their game.

 

[Wayfarer]

Edit: Take the following with a grain of salt.

That's not ironic. I'm not selling it for money. I haven't even released it, nor do I currently plan to. It's a pet project. And even if it were even remotely the same situation, it still wouldn't be irony.

Regardless of being a pet project technically Nintendo could take it down in a second (even if exists only as a video). Whether they choose to enforce their copyright is perhaps another thing.

Okay, I'm willing to rephrase my point: you "can" make a fan game but it's well within the creators right to uphold their IP (if they choose to do so). In Nintendo's case obviously they do shutdown a lot of fan games (they recently shutdown lots of smaller fan games from Game Jolt and other sites), though not all companies go to that length which, honestly, I'm glad about.

@Nocturne: Bro. You just got burned almost as hard as I did when the other guy said "your RPG also has an RPG looking logo! Checkmate!" at me.

I think we should both probably just quit the forums and gamedev forever. ):

I still think you are others are taking "high and mighty" stance that has a likelihood of biting you back at some point

c) there is plenty of court precedence set, and as I said it will likely reach an agreement out of court (looks like the thief agreed to pull the content to avoid infringement reports to the iOS/Android store)

They didn't pull the game down; they removed a couple of the "dance moves" which is like the more ridiculous part of the similarities between Keke's work and the game. Judging by all the reviews it would be stupid of them not to at least take that measure. If you watch the game there a far more similar things like the general aesthetics of the characters in terms of having round bodies, how the neck petrudes out in many animations, the legs, among other things to suggest the work was "copied" heavily from Keke.

[edit: okay, I understand now the dance moves are the important part here. My bad]

This whole thing is over.

That's not even true! (not just yet, anyway)

And one more time, so that you guys can stop misleading other members who might not know better: I did not "read the book of law". Every person in the creative space should have a full understanding of creative copyright law in their country, and there are abundant resources available for people to do so. Stop misconstruing it to seem like only a prestigious lawyer can understand copyright law. That is simply not the case

Sounds great! Let's do away with lawyers, judges, or anything! We can just call in you and you make the decision

Spoiler

it'd be much cheaper too!

Spoiler

Actually, I kind of agree with your point, but I couldn't resist

Edit: Just re-read this and I'm sorry if I came across offensive.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I still think you are others are taking "high and mighty" stance that has a likelihood of biting you back at some point

How do you mean?

 

[Wayfarer]

Edit: Take this with a grain of salt. A big grain of salt if required.

Okay, I'm happy to say I'm wrong... I don't want to offend anyone so I'll happily say I'm wrong. I'm not sure if I'm actually wrong, but I'm not sure that I'm right either, so there's that

How do you mean?

I will admit, when it comes to the legal side of all of this, I do have no clue (well probably not "no clue") but very little of a clue. So from now I'm down with whatever Ampersand / you / whoever said or says.

From what I'm reading here: The legal side seems to be if you based work off someone else's in an intentional manner then that is good enough to be classed as plagiarism. If the artist changes enough things maybe it wouldn't go noticed... but, that's not the point, it would still be plagiarism. If the legal intepretation is that... or close to that... I'm down with that. I won't argue with it if it's right.

So perhaps I'm arguing about the wrong thing here (very likely), but "legal" stuff aside, I still think there's undeniable ambiguity between what makes something original and what makes something a copy. I think everyone knows these lines are not clear. Again, I'll accept you guys are right on legal side.

A thought experiment:
Like say I come across the most awesome green pixel I've ever seen (created by another artist). And I decide I'm going to copy... yep that's right I'm going to steal this green pixel. To make things a bit more interesting I've decided I'm not going to use the colour dropper... in fact I'm going to spice things up and work out the colour by sight!! So I do that. Now I've got my plagiarised green pixel. Nice!

So then on the other side of the world, somebody else decides by some divine inspiration to draw a green pixel. By sheer chance it's a similar green to what I chose (and therefore the original artist). This however is agreeably not plagiarised (despite looking the same, there's only so much you can do with 1x1 pixel AND the person didnt copy the original so it's fine). It's a very boring piece of work, but it's not plagiarised.

Then actually, it turns out the artist on the other side of the world had seen the green pixel somewhere else and it wasn't divide inspiration at all! This thought experiment was weird to begin, but now it became super weird

[edit: even if you don't agree with the point of the "thought experiment"... surely you can see at least some merit it]

I hear this exact kind of thing in music all the time. In the past I was so paranoid about this I intentionally changed melodies in my own music (with the fear they weren't original). Fortunately I don't think like this as much now.

Like if you play me a piece of music, often I can hear the influences very clearly. I'm sure you / others get this too. And recently I was studying lots of music from 70's, 80's (Kansas in particular), and I could see how they influenced bands like Dream Theater, Amorphis, Metallica etc. Sometimes the link is hazy but other times you can almost say with high certaintity that one idea is based off another. Often the end result might be different but you get this intuitive feeling that enough moving parts line up for it to be intentional. And I think that should be fine!

[edit: perhaps in the case of Pigeon Pop you have far too many elements lining up]

Maybe it's silly to try and make an analogue with music as it has a relatively "lower resolution" (actually, this could be debated) in terms of what you can express when compared to visual art.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

Rayek already explained in detail where the line between plagiarism and inspiration is, @Wayfarer, and did a fantastic job explaining why this particular case is plagiarism. If you haven't read his post in this thread yet, I recommend you do. It's really good.

You're right that there's a spectrum between plagiarism and inspiration, and all art falls somewhere between the two. "Instantly recognizable as being a 1:1 copy/trace of another artist's work" is about as far on the plagiarism side as you can get though, haha. That's where this thread's case falls. Anyone who's familiar with Keke's work is going to instantly recognize that the Pigeon Pop animations are almost 1:1 copies. That's a completely different ballpark than "this music reminds me of another song a bit." Note that people have been sued for stealing melodies/riffs too, though!

Pigeon Pop is full of goofy bouncy pigeon animations. Most of them would remind one of Keke's work in general, but not of specific works of his (assuming they're not direct copies like a few were confirmed to be.) Those would be fine morally and legally. It's okay to learn from and take inspiration from other artists. It's *not* okay to directly copy/trace an artist's work. You can say "Whoa, keke's stuff is charming, I think I'll make some bouncing pigeons, too." You *can't* say "okay, keke's latest animation was great. Let's copy it. Okay.... three bounces per second...legs go left....eyes blink twice....head bobs once. Nice, done." That's beyond simple inspiration, and skipping all the actual work of doing/planning your own animation by cynically leeching off another artist's work. That's what happened in this case, which is why people are so angry at the Pigeon Pop people.

Phew. I hope my wall of text clears things up for you. Again, check out Rayek's earlier post, too. He goes more into this specific case.

 

[Wayfarer]

Most of them would remind one of Keke's work in general, but not of specific works of his (assuming they're not direct copies like a few were confirmed to be.) Those would be fine morally and legally. It's okay to learn from and take inspiration from other artists. It's *not* okay to directly copy/trace an artist's work.

I can respect that (and pretty much agree with it). Even so, I can still see diferences, though, sure, maybe these aren't enough to make them legally different. But it's not like they're not there at all! Especially when you compare it live in the game from the YouTube video. Are you sure about the confirmation part? I'd be curious just to see that for my own interest.
On the legal side, I'm not going to argue against what you're saying because I'll just accept you are right here.

I've read Rayek's post, and they do explain things nicely.

That's a completely different ballpark than "this music reminds me of another song a bit." Note that people have been sued for stealing melodies/riffs too, though!

I never even said "this reminds me of another song a bit"; if anything what I was trying to say was closer to the opposite. It was more like "I can hear with reasonable degree of certainty they got this idea from here". That's why I clearly emphasized: "often the end result might be different but you get this intuitive feeling that enough moving parts line up for it to be intentional". Maybe still a different ballpark to Pigeon Pop but a bit less than you made it sound

Edit:
@Ampersand:
I'm sorry if I offended / annoyed you. I'll stop making posts in this topic and I'll just read what's been posted here and see what I can learn

 

[Ampersand]

Regardless of being a pet project technically Nintendo could take it down in a second (even if exists only as a video). Whether they choose to enforce their copyright is perhaps another thing.

Excuse me, how will they take down the source code on my computer?

Anyways, a fan game where the creator doesn't claim to own any of the content in the game is entirely different than selling a game that contains someone else's IP. You all continue to amaze me with the short-circuited logical conclusions and adjacent law application.

Claiming to own another person's intellectual property is illegal. All the abstractions and semantics you guys are arguing are literally a waste of your time and everyone else's...

Also, if you had any reading comprehension, I never said the game was pulled. I stated before that the content would be pulled and I stated it again after it happened.

I know reading is hard. I'm sure that's the root issue with the lack of understanding regarding copyright law going on in this thread.

A thought experiment:
Like say I come across the most awesome green pixel I've ever seen (created by another artist). And I decide I'm going to copy... yep that's right I'm going to steal this green pixel. To make things a bit more interesting I've decided I'm not going to use the colour dropper... in fact I'm going to spice things up and work out the colour by sight!! So I do that. Now I've got my plagiarised green pixel. Nice!

So then on the other side of the world, somebody else decides by some divine inspiration to draw a green pixel. By sheer chance it's a similar green to what I chose (and therefore the original artist). This however is agreeably not plagiarised (despite looking the same, there's only so much you can do with 1x1 pixel AND the person didnt copy the original so it's fine). It's a very boring piece of work, but it's not plagiarised.

Then actually, it turns out the artist on the other side of the world had seen the green pixel somewhere else and it wasn't divide inspiration at all! This thought experiment was weird to begin, but now it became super weird

I disagree, as the law actually explicitly covers what is a reasonable definition of a derivative work... Green pixel would not be reasonable, a near-exact translation of motions across many frames across several animations would certainly be reasonably considered under the definition of derivative work.

Again, it's almost like if some people would take the time to educate themselves there would be no discussion to be had here... Your opinions, your thought experiments, and your "what ifs" don't matter in the eyes of the law. A lot of people here are acting as though perhaps copyright laws weren't created carefully and you may have thought of some semantic or clever paradox of sorts regarding copyright infringement, and I can guarantee those people that that is not the case.

You're right that there's a spectrum between plagiarism and inspiration, and all art falls somewhere between the two. "Instantly recognizable as being a 1:1 copy/trace of another artist's work" is about as far on the plagiarism side as you can get though, haha. That's where this thread's case falls. Anyone who's familiar with Keke's work is going to instantly recognize that the Pigeon Pop animations are almost 1:1 copies. That's a completely different ballpark than "this music reminds me of another song a bit." Note that people have been sued for stealing melodies/riffs too, though!

This is what really matters, should a case like this go to court. The prosecution only has to get the court to agree that the infringing work could be reasonably mistaken for the original work or as belonging to the original artist.

It was more like "I can hear with reasonable degree of certainty they got this idea from here". That's why I clearly emphasized: "often the end result might be different but you get this intuitive feeling that enough moving parts line up for it to be intentional".

This is why I made a similar anecdote earlier. This isn't a case of "those two notes in this song sound like these two notes in this other song". It's a case of "these two songs have the same melody and chord progression, even though the genre and instruments are different". And there is no hard line one way or the other as everyone here is demanding. The court must be convinced. But it would be about as hard as it was to convince the courts in Vanilla Ice v. Queen and Bowie or Johnny Cash v. Gordon Jenkins...

 

[Wayfarer]

Fair points. I willingly admit I was wrong.

Also, if you had any reading comprehension, I never said the game was pulled. I stated before that the content would be pulled and I stated it again after it happened.

Yeah, I had made edits to correct this. Even still... my bad. I could've probably made that clearer. Should've read your posts better to begin with.

I disagree, as the law actually explicitly covers what is a reasonable definition of a derivative work... Green pixel would not be reasonable, a near-exact translation of motions across many frames across several animations would certainly be reasonably considered under the definition of derivative work.

Again, it's almost like if some people would take the time to educate themselves there would be no discussion to be had here... Your opinions, your thought experiments, and your "what ifs" don't matter in the eyes of the law. A lot of people here are acting as though perhaps copyright laws weren't created carefully and you may have thought of some semantic or clever paradox of sorts regarding copyright infringement, and I can guarantee those people that that is not the case.

That makes sense. I wasn't intending to challenge the law, and I'll admit my "thought experiment" is super contrived.

But it would be about as hard as it was to convince the courts in Vanilla Ice v. Queen and Bowie or Johnny Cash v. Gordon Jenkins...

Also makes sense (I had to research the Johnny Cash v Gordon Jenkins one).

Well, I've learnt something here (something I should've already known): I won't state opinions like this unless I know what I'm talking about. In this case I had no clue what I was talking about. So, I'm sorry.

 

[Ampersand]

Well, I've learnt something here (something I should've already known): I won't state opinions like this unless I know what I'm talking about. In this case I had no clue what I was talking about. So, I'm sorry.

No worries. The last bit of this discussion has probably been the healthiest of the whole.

 

[sitebender]

Rayek already explained in detail where the line between plagiarism and inspiration is, @Wayfarer, and did a fantastic job explaining why this particular case is plagiarism. If you haven't read his post in this thread yet, I recommend you do. It's really good.

But I explained rotoscoping is copyright infringement and not plagiarism, because its derived from someone else's work and its not actually someone else's work. It would be plagiarism if it was the animator's .gifs with the game or someone else claiming to have made them and not just the animations.

* edit * Now that I take a look at it again, it doesn't even look like rotoscoping. The bodies and necks are different. The body sway is a bit stiffer.

It might not even be copyright infringement as some countries don't automatically grant a copyright unless its registered. If it isn't registered, the law cannot enforce it. It would depend on France's law.

 

[Ampersand]

But I explained rotoscoping is copyright infringement and not plagiarism, because its derived from someone else's work and its not actually someone else's work. It would be plagiarism if it was the animator's .gifs with the game or someone else claiming to have made them and not just the animations.

It might not even be copyright infringement as some countries don't automatically grant a copyright unless its registered. If it isn't registered, the law cannot enforce it. It would depend on France's law.

The argument was that it was copyright infringement, not that it was plagiarism. The word was used (at least by me) in an anecdote that compared re-wording an academic paper to rotoscoping.

And regarding inter-nationality, I am not positive but my understanding would be that due to Apple's developer agreements and because the infringing game is being sold in U.S. markets that he could contest the use of the properties under U.S. copyright laws. Likely would not be worth his trouble cost-wise, however. Certainly not so since the infringing artist was repentant and removed the infringing properties.

It seems the standing discussion remains in the "what-if" realm, and only considering the "ifs" that aren't factually present to us. If he was not infringing on any copyright laws the infringing artist wouldn't have removed the content, and in the same instance the original artist would likely not have a legal case. However, the original artist had a case and the infringing artist was pressured to remove the content before legal action was taken.

Why would you return something you didn't steal?

 

[Dog Slobber]

If he was not infringing on any copyright laws the infringing artist wouldn't have removed the content, and in the same instance the original artist would likely not have a legal case.

This simply isn't true. There are a lot of reasons where an innocent person would settle, financial resons being primary.

Had the original artist issued a DMCA takedown request, Fortafy Games has these choices:

• Replace the [potential] offending material
• Dispute the notice and start a lengthy and costly legal proceeding

I'm guessing the only financially prudent decision was to replace the alledged infringing material. Taking on the financial burden of defending an IP claim is foolish.

Please note, I'm not claiming that there was or wasn't any infringement. I simply don't know.

All I'm claiming is replacing the material is not evidence that there was an infingement.

However, the original artist had a case and the infringing artist was pressured to remove the content before legal action was taken.

Why would you return something you didn't steal?

Plea bargains and out of court settlements are used by innocent people all the time.

Patent trolls business model is purely based on people settling out of court because litigating is simply to costly.

 

[sylvain_l]

Patent trolls business model is purely based on people settling out of court because litigating is simply to costly.

going to agree on that.

once upon a time it was "innocent until proven guilty" nowaday it's more fun to assume guilty
for now I have read nothing where the creator of the app admitted having effectively used the kéké animation. It's just a witch hunt where the lynching is the norm. welcome to the social media justice worthy of the Middle Ages.

(seriously, with more than 50 years of animations at disney, warner bros, etc... I would be really surprise that there is not already much older version of a round body on stick legs that balance itself in rythm like that.)

 

[sitebender]

going to agree on that.

once upon a time it was "innocent until proven guilty" nowaday it's more fun to assume guilty
for now I have read nothing where the creator of the app admitted having effectively used the kéké animation. It's just a witch hunt where the lynching is the norm. welcome to the social media justice worthy of the Middle Ages.

(seriously, with more than 50 years of animations at disney, warner bros, etc... I would be really surprise that there is not already much older version of a round body on stick legs that balance itself in rythm like that.)

I'd like to see this go to court, but I doubt it will go that far. The company that made the game can go on the attack and take it to court as their reviews, placement and reputation has now been damaged.

Now that I've had a second look at the art, I'm inclined to agree with the original poster. As similar as they look, the bodies and necks are different. The animation is a bit stiffer with the body sway back and forth.

 

[Falconsoft-Industries]

Guess no one wants me to make MegaMan star force 4?

 

[sitebender]

Looks like the game has been removed from iTunes store and Google Play.

 

[zendraw]

the power of bein a drama queen.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

the power of bein a drama queen.

Don't steal, and you won't have to worry about "drama queens."

THE POWER OF JUSTICE

The game is still up from what I can see on my side, though. Maybe the sites just didn't update for me yet though, I dunno.

 

[Ninety]

Don't steal, and you won't have to worry about "drama queens."

probably this is the only forum where "don't steal" is controversial

 

[zendraw]

probably this is the only forum where "don't steal" is controversial

the only reason fangames exist is cus big devs need to keep face, so lets not talk about stealing, rich.

 

[GMWolf]

Is this thread even still relevant?

 

[zendraw]

was it relevant to somthing to begin with? can u people just chat without thinking that your changing the world with ur comments?

 

[GMWolf]

was it relevant to somthing to begin with? can u people just chat without thinking that your changing the world with ur comments?

You people?

And yeah. I can. I just don't think this chat is going anywhere anymore.

 

[zendraw]

well say somthing intresting and provocative, it just might go somewhere until noc comes and locks it for no reason.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

the only reason fangames exist is cus big devs need to keep face, so lets not talk about stealing, rich.

???

 

[Ampersand]

well say somthing intresting and provocative, it just might go somewhere until noc comes and locks it for no reason.

It seems we already said plenty that was provocative, seeing how so many got their panties in a bunch over the idea of intellectual property theft being a real thing both ethically and legally.

the power of bein a drama queen.

Yes, but care to take another guess at who that is?

was it relevant to somthing to begin with? can u people just chat without thinking that your changing the world with ur comments?

It was extremely relevant. And just so we're not reviving a dead post without it being relevant:

* edit * Now that I take a look at it again, it doesn't even look like rotoscoping. The bodies and necks are different. The body sway is a bit stiffer.

Let us say it one more time, so that we hopefully didn't leave anyone thinking any form of intellectual property theft is okay: it doesn't have to be a deadset tracing to be rotoscoping. Here's a fantastic example of a game called Bless Online rotoscoping an animation from How to Train Your Dragon (illegally, since that must be made clear):

The characters, the dragons, the gear, the foliage, even the clouds and effects are different. One might argue that Bless Online increased the quality of the sequence in several aspects, and I'd argue myself that I like their rendering better than Dreamworks' styling. However...

This is intellectual property theft! Plain and simple. Intellectual property theft is not about direct theft of content, it is about the theft of core ideas at their simplest nature.

Let's all be aware of this as we continue our journey in game development.

And for those of you who continued to make the "well wat aboot fangames" argument, I sure hope you don't make a fan game and claim their intellectual property as your own. Because...

That is intellectual property theft!



And an easter egg for those of you who didn't find this post any fun: How to Train Your Dragon actually may have copied this animation sequence from the Hunger Games Minecraft Mod, because they are as strikingly similar as the two in the above GIF! Isn't it fun how easy it is to steal ideas when we don't stay vigilant and respect one another's ideas as though they are our own?

Food for thought!

 

[zendraw]

dude, seriously, look at league of legends. if this here is theft, then my god lol is a recidivist. copying a motion is one thing, mimicing it is another, and as if no1 ever can come up with the same idea of a motion or whatever. its rediculus.

 

[Ampersand]

dude, seriously, look at league of legends. if this here is theft, then my god lol is a recidivist. copying a motion is one thing, mimicing it is another, and as if no1 ever can come up with the same idea of a motion or whatever. its rediculus.

Oh, no. You're saying Riot Games steals animations? I'd love to see it, honestly.

If you're talking about the dozens of crappy clones on iOS and similar, yes that is intellectual property theft.

And if "this here" were not indeed theft, why on earth did he pull his game from mobile stores?

 

[zendraw]

Oh, no. You're saying Riot Games steals animations? I'd love to see it, honestly.

If you're talking about the dozens of crappy clones on iOS and similar, yes that is intellectual property theft.

And if "this here" were not indeed theft, why on earth did he pull his game from mobile stores?

he pulled it out cus hes smart, obviosly, hes small and to deal with the law wuld be too much of a hassle.
and no i dont mean the animations, i mean models and graphics. AND the game itself, or you dont know dota was first? did you know that blizzard simply let the modders that made dota to just keep it up? yes they culd have claimed rights over the mod but they didnt. and i can assure you many big companies can claim rights over many games made by small fry, but thats just not smart. or worth the effort. get over it, "artists" like this one are just butthurt and nothing else.

 

[Ampersand]

he pulled it out cus hes smart, obviosly, hes small and to deal with the law wuld be too much of a hassle.
and no i dont mean the animations, i mean models and graphics. AND the game itself, or you dont know dota was first? did you know that blizzard simply let the modders that made dota to just keep it up? yes they culd have claimed rights over the mod but they didnt. and i can assure you many big companies can claim rights over many games made by small fry, but thats just not smart. or worth the effort. get over it, "artists" like this one are just butthurt and nothing else.

Oh yikes, do I need to explain genres to you? Or do you understand the difference between Forza Motorsport and Pole Position? You can't own an abstract concept, but you can certainly own intentional property. And using words like "butthurt", it's seeming more and more like you're the only one feeling that way.

And you don't have to tell me. I played DotA from the v1 map onward, and I've played both DotA 2 and play LoL regularly. And if you're comparing the art, gameplay style, or anything between the two that seems like nit-picking an argument. The only similar things between the two are the genre and the controls. Call of Duty didn't steal their ideas from Counter Strike, just like they didn't steal their ideas from DOOM.

Also, blindly combining the old WarCraft 3 mod to the full fledged Valve game as one intellectual property seems brash and foolish, and points further to you choosing to ignore both the legal and ethical grounds of this argument.

I'd love for an argument that wasn't anecdotal, but it seems you are unable to provide such. Nit-picking semantics isn't getting you any ground, and is just leaving you brazenly displaying questionable morals in a public forum...

 

[Nocturne]

"artists" like this one are just butthurt and nothing else

I like how you put artists in quotes, obviously implying that they are anything but artists and it's all a pretension. Do you have a master in art history or something similar to make such a judgement? Art is very much a subjective thing... I find most of the things here to be laughable and yet they've won prestigious prizes and critical acclaim from those that know about art... Insulting the person's work does you no favours and has absolutely zero to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Ampersand]

Insulting the person's work does you no favours and has absolutely zero to do with the discussion at hand.

Agreed, I thought it was clear at this point that one's opinion of the work has no effect on the legality or the morality of theft.

You don't steal things because you don't like them, why would that absolve one of the theft?

 

[zendraw]

hahaha, here we go again. you kno, i feel you got lonely and decided to start this all over again. there is no need for arguments, you see what you want to see, you dont care to see a man`s point. if you cannot understand what i write, or dont want becouse of an ego trip, then thats your problem, not mine. dont blame me for your stupidity.

noc, tell me honestly, do i really need a masters degree of art to be an artist? a master artist? did all of the key artists had a masters degree? you know what im getting at with these stupid questions.

 

[GMWolf]

noc, tell me honestly, do i really need a masters degree of art to be an artist? a master artist? did all of the key artists had a masters degree? you know what im getting at with these stupid questions.

the point was that you implied that the artist you where referring to was not in fact an artist.
You seem to have strong views about what should and shouldn't be art. Pixel art for instance.

@Noc This thread is a total mess; its going on in circles, and features many unintelligible arguments. Should it not be closed now?

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

hahaha, here we go again. you kno, i feel you got lonely and decided to start this all over again. there is no need for arguments, you see what you want to see, you dont care to see a man`s point. if you cannot understand what i write, or dont want becouse of an ego trip, then thats your problem, not mine. dont blame me for your stupidity.

He's arguing because you're wrong, and because your comments are disrespecting artists who are a hundred times more skilled than you are. Go try and make something like Pepe's stuff - you'll find out it's much, much harder than you think it is. If he's like me, he's arguing because he finds your attitude terrible, and you're pissing him off. I'd be arguing with you, too, but you keep saying the same things over and over again, even though it's been explained to you why this is copyright infringement a million times already. I'm too tired to argue, but I can understand why he's still arguing. I don't think it's because of an ego trip. He's not the one calling people stupid or butthurt.

 

[Nocturne]

@Noc This thread is a total mess; its going on in circles, and features many unintelligible arguments. Should it not be closed now?

Yeah, I have to agree. I think any original discussion has been had and this is now indeed going nowhere. With heavy heart I declare this thread closed...