Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
VegetableStu

[Update x2: reversed with statement] Shell Shock as Wargaming DMCAs Thingiverse users' tank model submissions

https://ritastatusreport.live/2019/04/15/wargaming-sloppy-dmca-takedowns-against-3d-tank-modellers/

 

Apparently WG has already withdrawn their claim and all of the models should be back but they will continue to track down and DMCA models that actually infringe their IPs like models directly ripped off from the game, models using images from the game and models infringing their trademarks (which all can be found from Thingiverse right now). Someone apparently wanted to make their job a lot easier and send way too broad takedown notice.

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Thaldor said:

The topology doesn't matter. For copyright infringement a visual indenticality is enough, it doesn't matter how you attained it.

Like if there was a bronze sculpture somewhere and you were to make identical 3D print out of it and claim it's yours, you would be commiting copyright infringement. If we move to this case there would be a old bronze sculpture from which someone else had made a 3D model and added a tophat on it and you were to make a 3D printable version out of that 3D model with the tophat and all, even if the original bronze sculpture would be in public domain you would still commit copyright infringement. Also it doesn't matter if you were to make that sculpture out of clay instead of 3D printing it, you would still commit copyright infringement.

No matter how much work and what materials you used to make a copy out of someone elses work, you are still commiting copyright infringement if that work isn't in public domain or you have permission. Even if that other persons work was based on something that is in public domain, if that person has altered the original for their work (changed proportions, added details, generally made something that differenciates their work from the original) and you were to copy their work with their changes to the original, you are commiting copyright infringement because that other persons work isn't in public domain even if the original is.

Andy Warhol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Andy Warhol.

Not valid point. A) Warhol didn't make photorealistic paintings  and so they were visually very different B) Warhol was actually sued for one of his Flower paintings which was done from another photographers photo and that was settled outside of the courtroom with Warhol paying the photographer and crediting (giving royalties) her. Appropiation artists usually make paintings which are clearly in different style than the original photo and visually distinguishable, Warhol was sued apparently couple of times both times ending with sttlement outside of the courtroom and apparently quite often these cases end with that. Warhols Campbell's soup cans were never tried and remain in the grey area wether or not they are CR infringements and probably that is because Campbell gained a lot of good and free notoriety from Warhols paintings and Campbell even giving real soup can labels to Warhol to use as invitations for his exhibits. In 2012 Campbell released special edition soup cans to commemorate Warhol with labels colored as Warhols paintings and bearing Warhols signature, I couldn't find were there any kind of paperwork with them but them hitting the markets I think Warhols estate approved with it. So even if there wasn't direct sues or even claims from Campbell to Warhol, there was dialogue between them and both were satisfied by the outcomes without any official legal paperwork or even public dialogue about copyrights/trademarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Not valid point. A) Warhol didn't make photorealistic paintings  and so they were visually very different B) Warhol was actually sued for one of his Flower paintings which was done from another photographers photo and that was settled outside of the courtroom with Warhol paying the photographer and crediting (giving royalties) her. Appropiation artists usually make paintings which are clearly in different style than the original photo and visually distinguishable, Warhol was sued apparently couple of times both times ending with sttlement outside of the courtroom and apparently quite often these cases end with that. Warhols Campbell's soup cans were never tried and remain in the grey area wether or not they are CR infringements and probably that is because Campbell gained a lot of good and free notoriety from Warhols paintings and Campbell even giving real soup can labels to Warhol to use as invitations for his exhibits. In 2012 Campbell released special edition soup cans to commemorate Warhol with labels colored as Warhols paintings and bearing Warhols signature, I couldn't find were there any kind of paperwork with them but them hitting the markets I think Warhols estate approved with it. So even if there wasn't direct sues or even claims from Campbell to Warhol, there was dialogue between them and both were satisfied by the outcomes without any official legal paperwork or even public dialogue about copyrights/trademarks.

I only remember a little bit from high school art class, but he literally directly ripped comic panels and recolored them. A court decided in his favor.

 

And in the case of Wargaming, they do not own exclusive rights to anything in their game. Even if they did, if someone made their own model they still have no claim to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

I only remember a little bit from high school art class, but he literally directly ripped comic panels and recolored them. A court decided in his favor.

 

And in the case of Wargaming, they do not own exclusive rights to anything in their game. Even if they did, if someone made their own model they still have no claim to it.

Quick Googling around you are not talking about Warhol but Roy Lichtenstein who's whole career is build onto (in todays terms) ripping off comics. Most articles going into his copyright problems just point out that he was more or less using the loopholes in the earlier US copyrightlaws where the comicbook artist didn't really have rights for their work but the publisher had but that mainly covered comicbooks and whole strips, not single images. At the point where Lichtenstein was sued he (his representative) could also easily afford more expensive court cases than the comicbook publishers and artists suing him which means basicle he went and said: "You can continue this but I will win, not because I'm right, but because you will run out of money way before my attourney runs out of ideas prolonging the case". Lichtenstein also used less known comics as his sources probably for this reason (also less selling comics because bigger publishers like DC wouldn't run a lenghty court case for something that didn't sell well), he was very well informed if he was going to to make a painting out of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or Superman, he would be marched over in the courtroom and probably that would have caused he to loose his livelyhood just because then there would have been court case lost by him.

Today you use the same source material as Lichtenstein used and you get sued by Lichtensteins estate for infringing his copyrights because copyright laws have come a long way.

 

What the hell do you smoke? Yes they do, except if something in their game is 100% 1:1 scale and no artistic freedoms taken historical/real-world thing, and they very much have claims for them. It's a dick move to enforce those rights, but by the law they have all the rights to sue people for using their intellectual property without consent. The thing here is that did the thingiverse artists really ripoff WoT (as in get caught for not noticing changes WG has made to the historical tanks as in different lenght gun barrel, adding tools and spare tracks around the tank,  sometimes even making a tank out of their heads (like T28, T28 prototype and T28 concept); this is pretty much normal procedure in game development, with it even get around some legal problems or just make the things more appealing in the game) or did they just use the same source material and WG is clearly stepping over their boundaries.

 

Edit: Lichtenstein actually was never sued over copyrights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 2:23 PM, shermantanker said:

If they did in fact rip files from the game, and re-use them I back wargaming on this. I don't know the cost of tanks, but ships cost well over a 100k to research through archives and create the models for World of Warships. But I think a cease and desist would have been more appropriate, but that have to protect their assets  to prevent competitors from ripping their models for knockoff games.

Understandable, but pointless action.

 

I understand that they did it and why. But it's pointless trying to stop, and why would you WANT to stop, people making little plastic replicas... :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

added a news article, and... well...

 

EDIT: Thingiverse should reverse the entire action, even if there are some others (outside of the few vindicated creators) who illegitimately uploaded unconverted models. the search is so damned flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Understandable, but pointless action.

 

I understand that they did it and why. But it's pointless trying to stop, and why would you WANT to stop, people making little plastic replicas... :/

I suspect their legal team went haywire once again. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last, WG is known to be very loosely hacked up company that has a lot of problems when it comes to making guidelines and informing different branches. Like around 2 years ago they went way too far with one youtuber filing DMCA takedown notice and people started a real poopstorm from it, didn't take long when the WG EU office made press release about it and everything kind of calmed down, until about hour later WG NA made press release which was complete opposite (IIRC they said that the DMCA takedown was necessity to remove toxicity and was surprising that they didn't talk about suing people) of WG EUs release and the whole poopstorm continued, took couple of days for them to release global anouncement to get the poopstorm to stop and people can just guess how many people got fired for not handling the matter the right way (like banning people from their forums, not giving clear answers, not contacting the other branches about things, mismanagement).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

added a news article, and... well...

 

EDIT: Thingiverse should reverse the entire action, even if there are some others (outside of the few vindicated creators) who illegitimately uploaded unconverted models. the search is so damned flawed.

Ah, so they did not actually check if it was copyright infringement? The whole thing is getting ridiculous (see FNAF, or however you spell that creepy robot teddy game... they literally accidentally uploaded someone else's art into their game, as even the professionals cannot keep track of what is their OWN copyrighted material, let alone an entire planets).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
38 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Ah, so they did not actually check if it was copyright infringement?

pretty much ._. not sure if incompetence of effort (lazy to check every search result) or incompetence of theory (... well...)

 

oGwD14g.jpg

 

literally the search link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

pretty much ._. not sure if incompetence of effort (lazy to check every search result) or incompetence of theory (... well...)

 

oGwD14g.jpg

 

literally the search link.

Incompetence is part of it "Word+of+tanks" is not the same as "World_of_tanks", so anything with the term "world" or "tanks" gets DRMCA'DDDDD... (assuming the search engine ignores 2 letter words such as "of", else 1/2 of Thingverse would be down!).

 

Ah snap. No, it's just the URL... yeah, someone else can put "a collection of tanks, like the world of tanks collection" or even a header to a webpage "world of dogs, world of planes, world of tanks" and unless actually infringing artistic material, than not copyright. I think they COULD argue they own the term "World of Tanks", but even then, I don't even think coca cola or Disney could sue you for example for "Team_of+Disney/Fans_drinking+coca@cola.com" for example.

 

I've Twitted [Badly... wow, my typing is trash tonight] to a copyright lawyer who does youtube videos on the off chance they may cover it. :P

https://twitter.com/_TechyBen/status/1117529316416466945

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
9 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I've Twitted [Badly... wow, my typing is trash tonight] to a copyright lawyer who does youtube videos on the off chance they may cover it. :P

https://twitter.com/_TechyBen/status/1117529316416466945

he twote a comment. thanks both!

 

 

@imreloadin see last two tweets immediately above. answer seems to be yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Best Answer

https://ritastatusreport.live/2019/04/15/wargaming-sloppy-dmca-takedowns-against-3d-tank-modellers/

 

Apparently WG has already withdrawn their claim and all of the models should be back but they will continue to track down and DMCA models that actually infringe their IPs like models directly ripped off from the game, models using images from the game and models infringing their trademarks (which all can be found from Thingiverse right now). Someone apparently wanted to make their job a lot easier and send way too broad takedown notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Buy VPN

×