Gamerenders = Gamerippers?

it would waist to much time of that particular games lawers plus im sure they dont really have a problem with it becuase it kind of promots there games

 

[/quote]

What extra money? A fiver? How many people here would have the money to pay the compensation and legal fees involved? In the end the companies would more likely wind up losing money (not to mention the time and effort) trying. If they were to file lawsuits against anyone it would be the websites like GR that allow this kind of thing to be put on display.

However, there's really no point. Such imagery is used for the gameplay or for marketing purposes. People using the imagery doesn't hurt their profit margin (rather, it's free advertising, which can only help). Since the imagery is produced for a company then there's no personal attachment either.

 

^ That is a very nice point you have there.

 

well, if we look at the issue from the game developer's perspective, we see their strategy. their goal is to make a game that sells well. much of the effort is put into making a good game, but effort is also put into promotion of the game when it's finished.

this is why sites like IGN and other game/media outlets get official art before the game is released. the game company knows that IGN has to use the art to make article headings, banner navigation, etc. the staffers at IGN render the official artwork for such uses.

however, there's bonus publicity when a game has good art/stocks that become popular to use in the GFX community online. in fact, since the vast majority of sigmakers are also gamers, the spread of official art through renders is a rather clever way to reach the ideal customer.

this is why when IGN gets official art, it's at high resolutions, and it's FREELY AVAILABLE. if the game companies didn't want the art to be released, then they could easily tell IGN or other similar sites to not post it.


so, i really don't think the game industry is upset about rendering game images/art. free publicity to the perfect buyers - can't get much better than that.

_______________________________________________________

HOWEVER, the subject of deviantart is a thorny one. many different artists who are registered there make art for varying reasons. you won't find many game artists posting game art - that art belongs to the game company, which as i explained earlier, will publish it though other channels.

so a lot of artists on DA aren't getting paid for their art on a consistent basis (unlike game artists who work for companies). so they can't afford to have their art enter the public domain to be used freely.

thus, i believe gamerenders' current policy towards DA and other such sites is the correct one.

in addition, on the subject of profiting from game images or other copyrighted art...

if you buy a pack of renders somewhere online, what are you purchasing? you're not buying the art, it doesn't even belong to the person who's selling the pack. you're purchasing the work that the seller put in to render the art.

when you buy a tutorial, are you purchasing the render used in the tutorial? no, you're buying access to a learning aid for effects and composition.

gamerenders does not allow the sale of renders for credits. YET you can pay someone credits to render an image. there's a fine difference. one implies that you're paying for the art, while the other makes it clear that you're paying for the cut job.

just my opinions on this entire issue.

 

BFTP standing up for the renderers thanks

 

This is a reason I try to use minimal stocks and effects in my sigs. I never use C4D. But I think 'taking' a stock image or gaming image is not severe ripping, otherwise we probably would have known about that my now.

BTW, are you Lx0, from RSC? Who does all the models and uber cool stoofs?

 

This is a pile of crap!
How is it ripping..

 

[/quote]
don't you see that :tongue:

you didn't create the stocks or images you use, so you use someone else his work without asking permission = ripping

 

So isn't making sigs a rip to?
i mean u take stocks and use them.

 

[/quote]

1. Not all material is copyrighted, hence the public domain.

2. Permissions.... Different companies take different approaches, but the idea of legally using another's artwork is not implausible.

3. The fact that there is some gray area doesn't mean that we should abandon the concept of copyright. Hume showed us that we can't prove a causality with 100% certainty, does that mean that we should stop prosecuting criminals?


I'm not saying that we should abide by common copyright law completely, but let's not caricaturize its deficiencies. There are very few who would attempt to sue when commercial damages are zero, but there are plenty of exceptions as well.

 

[/quote]

Technically yes, unless the sig doesn't use any stocks that are not released in the public domain for free use by the owner. I think that much has been established. What has also been covered is that it's simply a waste of time and resources to shut down something that not only does not hurt their income but actually benefits them in the form of free advertising.

 

Isn't this making too fine a point of something. Yes I can understand the idea that copyrighted images used in tags (and pretty much ALL images are copyright these days) could be considered ripping, but if we become that finicky about this then surely it would change depending on WHO was doing it, after all not every country has the same laws, and as far as I'm aware there are no global copyright policies in action.

But as I said, that's beyond the point. Whether or not this is or isn't ripping, legally or morally or otherwise, will not deter the majority of people. GFX sites are used as a base for advertising, and as previously mentioned game companies (I'm assuming most renders/stocks used are game based, although more and more are becoming photo's of people and places) and others do get a certain degree of free advertising from this. I'm not explaining myself well here, but I think, in short what I'm trying to say is that although the legality may be grey, the reality is that no one truly loses out and many gain a lot from sites like GR.

As for DA I think Dr. Pepsi pretty much summed up what I was going to say.

Also, I've seen a few comments along the lines of "if we're not selling the renders/tags then it's not wrong". To those that write such words, could I just remind you that a LOT of the GR community DOES sell these products (not renders, but tags, tuts etc. that all use these equally still copyrighted materials) and although "virtual money" may seem worthless, certainly GR creds have monetary value, and I see Paypal used a lot. They are a currency in their own right, albeit a weak one.

 

Its true, if we use stocks/renders without people's permission, it is, in essence, ripping.

 

the monetary value of credits may be part of why the GR administration decided implement recent policy changes. :mellow:

 

I haven't read all of the posts, but I would just like to make a quick note that it wouldn't be in the best interest of these gaming companies(and others), to chase down everyone who is manipulating/using their images.
1. That kind of action wouldn't be feasible
2. It wouldn't be time-efficient or money-efficient on their part
3. These images made by people advertise and promote the products and components of said companies.

In the end, it would be the companies paying money to lose money.

If they leave it alone, it is free advertising which is massively effective.