(TEC) Is it ok to..?

[miner1436]

Hello, I was wondering if it is ok take a 3D model of a ship from a diffrent game I have and use it with SH4 and release it as a mod. Just wondering if its illegal or not.

Thanks: Miner

[Von Manteuffel]

Strictly speaking it's totally illegal. The skin will have been created by someone originally ( probably for the game you have ) and so, he/she, or the company he/she works for - the publisher of the original game - will hold copyright over it.

I don't suppose Ubisoft would mind too much if modders port ships between, say, SH3 & SH4. They own the rights to both games, but the owners of the rights to a skin from a non-Ubi game you want to use in SH4 might object.

Of course, a great deal depends on the circumstances. If the mod is strictly not-for-profit, but to enhance gaming experience and enjoyment etc. They could well allow it by "turning a blind eye." It will also depend on where in the sales curve the original game is. If it's an older game which isn't turning the publishing company many sales, they might take a more positive view of someone adapting their product than if its a brand new game where they haven't even recouped their original investment yet.

[Digital_Trucker]

Of course, a lot would depend on whether they even noticed or not:hmm:

It's a tough call no matter how you approach it. You could just do it and risk the legal ramifications or you could ask permission and be told no (maybe).

[miner1436]

The model I was going to port over was the "Kaga" and "Akagi" from Secret Weapons Over Normandy from 2003 by Lucas Arts and Totally Games.

[Von Manteuffel]

Advice is cheap to give, but if I were you I'd send them an e-mail to ask permission, explaining briefly what you want to do - stressing that it's not for sale, or profit - and promising to give them and their game full credit in your mod.

The worst that can happen is that they'll say "No."

Good luck.

[miner1436]

I sent them an EMail via Tech support, they should reply within 48 hours. I can only hope for the best.

[Redwine]

If you do not use it for proffit, to make money, may be it use is not unlaw. :hmm:

[miner1436]

I just got an Email saying I need to send my request to their corporate office in a letter.

[andycaccia]

Hmmm, things are getting complicate... I'd suggest you to take the model anyway and make your experiments. If there is a chance of using the model from lucasarts game in "our" SH4 without problems then send a letter and ask for permission. In fact is the RELEASE of your mod containing their model that might cause violation. If you test the procedure (extraction, conversion, insertion in sh4 and test) without publishing the mod, no problem:yep: . Since it may not work properly, i think it's better not to waste time on asking for rights that may prove to be of no use.

[tater]

Change the model by X% and don't sell it.

Not sure what the min change % is, but it shouldn't be hard.

[andycaccia]

I agree, Tater. This may be a solution.:know: Change something and make everything for free.

[miner1436]

The thing is since I have no 3D modding experience, and I dont know how to get it to work in SHIV I was going to make it an open source/community project, anyone having experence could contribute and the mod could get finished quicker.

[cheese123]

Hmmm:hmm: thats a tough one, I say to just do it but you might want to wait for more opinions.

[prologos]

Change the model by X% and don't sell it.

Not sure what the min change % is, but it shouldn't be hard.

Yeap I believe that's the way to go...:up:
I can help test it and maybe have a go on refining and/or changing the skin. I haven't tried that before but what the heck.... No 3d modelling experience though :D

[vanjast]

I wonder if Lucas arts got permission from the Imperial Japanese Navy/Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and the Japanese WW2 memorial organisation, to do a 3D model of these ships.

ONE LARGE PIZZA with extra garlic and chillies, they didn't :lol:

[Von Manteuffel]

What a wonderfully thought-provoking question!

As far as I'm aware, the answer is that copyright is dependent on the nature of the original and the nature of the "copy".

Take an object - any object, from a hair-brush to a battleship. It exists in the real world. It and it's physical components are protected from unauthorised copying by the law of patents - a form of copyright. So, you can't just come along and make a copy of the object with which to brush your hair, or sail the ocean without seeking permission ( and usually paying for a license for the privilege of doing so.) That is you are forbidden by the law of patent from duplicating the actual object, or any of its patented components as they exist in the real world in their original form.

If you make a plastic version of a wooden hair-brush and use synthetic bristles rather than natural ones, whether you are in breach of the patent which applies to the original brush will depend on the size, style and "look" of your version. Patent applies to function and design.

BUT, it is perfectly legal to make a drawing, or paint a picture, or take a photograph, or create an image of the object. That image etc. immediately becomes your copyright. You don't impinge upon the patent / copyright associated with the actual object, because you can't brush your hair with a drawing, or picture. Your copyright only applies to the picture / image / photograph of it, not to the object your image represents.

An exception to this is trademarks and logos etc. They are regarded as images and are subject to copyright. So, while you are at liberty to draw, paint and photograph the hair-brush; if it was a promotional object which advertises Coca Cola on its back, you would need to get the Coca Cola Company's permission before using, or distributing your image.

It's nothing to do with the actual hair-brush, but the Coca Cola logo is their copyright and may not be reproduced, or used without their permission. To avoid everyone who takes a holiday snapshot which includes a logo, or trademark from having to seek permission, the law usually allows the making of such images for "private use" But, if the person tries to distribute, or sell his, or her image of the logo, he, or she should seek the permission of the copyright holder. ( This raises an interesting question about merchant ships' liveries in games such as Silent Hunter. They were subject to copyright.)

That apart, EA, Ubisoft etc. are perfectly at liberty to use models of ships etc. which exist(ed) in real life in their games. Since they are not making a copy of the actual object as it exists / existed in the real world - i.e. it's an image, not a copy of the real thing, they cannot be in breach of patent. But, in turn, they do hold copyright on the image they create.

So, in this present instance, strictly-speaking under copyright law, because his version would use the same medium - computer graphics - and would be used for an identical purpose to the original - a model in a computer game - Miner 1436, would need permission to adapt, or transfer EA's model, or image into Silent Hunter. However, he is perfectly at liberty to create from scratch a brand new image, or model of the same vessel ( for which he would then hold the copyright).

Thanks for a stimulating intellectual work-out.

Easy on the garlic, but lots of chillies ..........and anchovies and capers?

[vanjast]

Oleg and IL2 seem to be having this very problem, that you say 'is for free'.
Anyway their 'excuse' is that Boeing/Grumman are forbidding them to make 3D models of some of their planes for use in IL2.

Could this be the USA patent law 'going over the edge', or an excuse not to include certain flyables ? A sad day anyway...

:up:

[miner1436]

I wonder what kind of letter they want...:hmm: any pointers? Im not so good at writing letters.

[M. Sarsfield]

Anyway their 'excuse' is that Boeing/Grumman are forbidding them to make 3D models of some of their planes for use in IL2.

Shocker... :roll:

[Von Manteuffel]

Oleg and IL2 seem to be having this very problem, that you say 'is for free'.
Anyway their 'excuse' is that Boeing/Grumman are forbidding them to make 3D models of some of their planes for use in IL2.

Now that is unusual.:hmm: Normally companies are happy for their vehicles etc to be used in games. It brings them and their product to public prominence and adds interest. Plus it can in no way threaten their sales ( unless IL2 players happen to have a few tens of millions of dollars lying around soomewhere and are in the market for a fast jet, or two. )

It can't even be that the in-game performance will show their plane up in a bad light, since the only performance data the modellers can use will come from the plane's manufacturers - and they're not going to dis their own stuff.

It can't be security considerations - or can it? I can't imagine a computer game would be in a position to reveal classified, or sensitive material in its offerings - although one of my favourite stories concerns the Eagle, a British magazine for boys in the 1950s, which featured an accurate and very detailed cut-away illustration of a plane, ship, or piece of military hardware as a centre-page spread every week. One day, the illustrator was visited by some gentlemen from the British Security Services who demanded to know where he had got the details for one of his latest drawings from. They left red-faced when he explained that he'd written to the contracting manufacturer and they'd sent him an illustrated brochure!

I can only suppose they're either being overly-precious, or have signed an exclusivity deal for an undisclosed sum with another games manufacturer - which, again, is very unusual.

[vanjast]

We were all dissapointed by this as it would be great fun with 10 or so online people flying in a B17/B29 co-op mission.
:cry: