Photographer sues capcom for 12 million dollars for using her photo in their games

[JZStudios]

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

except capcom didnt make a video game of just her pictures. i thought my example is pretty analogous i use snippets of linus' video in a bigger presentation that has my own stuff also. capcom used some of her photos in a bigger project of a lot of other photos also. and we both got vague permissions that doesnt specify whether its ok for commercial use. linus told me i can use it in a presentation. the book told capcom that they can use the photos in their designs

Except Capcom used her products to make money. Why is this so complicated? I've told you about the CC licenses like 4 times now.

 

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Petty...

 

America.

God forbid you get paid for what you do for a living that someone stole.

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

no, its more like buying a cake recipe book, baking the cakes from that book, selling those cakes, and then getting sued for stealing cakes.

If they used those photos in the game, that could maybe be an issue, but most of these seem to just use the object in the photos as reference for their own work. What she owns the copyright to is the photos, not the objects in the photos.

Not even remotely. What objects are you talking about? These are material textures, and yes, those are bought, sold and licensed. It's a wonderful thing the internet exists so people who don't know anything about what the discussion is actually based on can provide their opinions.

[spartaman64]

6 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Except Capcom used her products to make money. Why is this so complicated? I've told you about the CC licenses like 4 times now.

 

God forbid you get paid for what you do for a living that someone stole.

 

Not even remotely. What objects are you talking about? These are material textures, and yes, those are bought, sold and licensed. It's a wonderful thing the internet exists so people who don't know anything about what the discussion is actually based on can provide their opinions.

in my hypothetical example i use linus' video to make money also. so you think if any money is involved then no other contracts than a proper commercial license should count?

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

in my hypothetical example i use linus' video to make money also. so you think if any money is involved then no other contracts than a proper commercial license should count?

There wasn't one is the problem. They never got the commercial license. Without the commercial license, they can't make money using the assets. They need the commercial license to make the money. Can't do it without. It's required. They need to ask for permission. You can't make money off a non-commercial license without the owners express consent. The owner needs to say they can. It needs to be specific.

How many more times in different ways can I say the same thing? If they didn't have the commercial license, they couldn't use her assets in products that they sell. It's a really simple concept.

 

You take a picture. You sell the picture. Someone buys the picture, uses it to make... shirts, whatever. They sell it. You're entitled to compensation because you didn't sell them a commercial license, nor did they ask for permission. It's a really basic concept. You sold them a picture, not redistribution rights. They're two different things. The picture you sold them they can use for personal use. Make it a wallpaper, print it out to hang on the wall, whatever. They don't have the rights to sell it.

It's exactly identical to piracy. You own that copy for personal use, you can't share it, can't duplicate it and sell it.

I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

[poochyena]

30 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

What objects are you talking about?

The objects that the photographer took photos of.

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

The objects that the photographer took photos of.

What does that have to do with stolen images?

[poochyena]

Just now, JZStudios said:

What does that have to do with stolen images?

If the images were actually only used as reference and not copy/pasted into the game, then who took the photo is irrelevant. If you took a photo of a Micky Mouse statue, and I copied that design and put it in my game, i'd owe Disney royalties, not you.

[Jeppes]

42 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Except Capcom used her products to make money. Why is this so complicated? I've told you about the CC licenses like 4 times now.

 

God forbid you get paid for what you do for a living that someone stole.

 

Not even remotely. What objects are you talking about? These are material textures, and yes, those are bought, sold and licensed. It's a wonderful thing the internet exists so people who don't know anything about what the discussion is actually based on can provide their opinions.

You think they pay 12 million usd for taking photo's of gravel and wood? Silly USA laws when all you should get is what the damages are. And thats less than court expenses here.

 

Although I can see it happening with Star Citizen.

[JZStudios]

Just now, poochyena said:

If the images were actually only used as reference and not copy/pasted into the game, then who took the photo is irrelevant. If you took a photo of a Micky Mouse statue, and I copied that design and put it in my game, i'd owe Disney royalties, not you.

I'm assuming your logic here is they're using her textures to make 3D models, thus not needing to pay her royalties? Technically there's non-derivative licenses that cover that.

They aren't doing that though, they're using her images. Look at the source, they're all 2d images, and they're all clearly hers.

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

If the images were actually only used as reference and not copy/pasted into the game, then who took the photo is irrelevant. If you took a photo of a Micky Mouse statue, and I copied that design and put it in my game, i'd owe Disney royalties, not you.

You've repeatedly made that claim but from the images it's not clear if they're merely inspired by the original photos or directly applied as textures. And even then, you can go down the Ship of Theseus route and argue if you take a photo, run it through an upsampling algorithm, the resulting picture at the end isn't exactly what you fed in, because the algorithm invented all the bits to upscale the image, so the result is only inspired by the original and the original was only a reference. So do you now owe royalties for that upsampled image if it's not the original?

[poochyena]

Just now, Jeppes said:

Silly USA laws when all you should get is what the damages are.

then what reason would there be to not steal?
Best case you get free stuff
Worst case, you pay what it was worth anyways

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, Jeppes said:

You think they pay 12 million usd for taking photo's of gravel and wood? Silly USA laws when all you should get is what the damages are. And thats less than court expenses here.

When its a large game company that sells millions of copies using your assets extensively over a period of decades? Who are you to say what the damages are?

[poochyena]

Just now, JZStudios said:

I'm assuming your logic here is they're using her textures to make 3D models, thus not needing to pay her royalties?

yes, thats what their claim is. Some images do look copy/pasted, but some could actually be recreated. It matters at lot which the case is.

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

but from the images it's not clear if they're merely inspired by the original photos or directly applied as textures.

completely agree. I'm just saying the difference between those two things are very different

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

then what reason would there be to not steal?
Best case you get free stuff
Worst case, you pay what it was worth anyways

Fun fact, California made shoplifting under $900 a non-criminal offense, so now stores are either locking up EVERYTHING or just closing down.

3 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You've repeatedly made that claim but from the images it's not clear if they're merely inspired by the original photos or directly applied as textures. And even then, you can go down the Ship of Theseus route and argue if you take a photo, run it through an upsampling algorithm, the resulting picture at the end isn't exactly what you fed in, because the algorithm invented all the bits to upscale the image, so the result is only inspired by the original and the original was only a reference. So do you now owe royalties for that upsampled image if it's not the original?

They're using the image textures, it is pretty clear. These PS2 games aren't detailed enough to be using that kind of geometry, and even if they were it would still be based off of her textures.

And non-derivative licenses, like I mentioned earlier. You don't have the right to edit and resell images either.

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

yes, thats what their claim is. Some images do look copy/pasted, but some could actually be recreated. It matters at lot which the case is.

completely agree. I'm just saying the difference between those two things are very different

It would still be derivative even if they created a new photo from it, and as mentioned with the door in a non-publicly accessible location, it would be one hell of a coincidence. But when you can match the exact pixels it's obvious it's using her images.

[JZStudios]

Just to be clear here, let's go through the images. They're all a bit blurry, but it's fairly obvious what's happening. I don't know why there's an argument about the objects in the image when the image itself is what's being used.

 

This one is pretty obvious.

 

This is the door from a non-public place. Even if the door in game is 3d modeled around the image, it's still using the image as the texture.

 

This would be one hell of a coincidence to take the photo of the same window from exactly the same angle with exactly the same lighting.

 

Another flat texture application, with the bottom half being mirrored in photoshop.

 

Another flat texture application, and yes, using part of the texture is still stealing.

 

This one arguably could be derivative instead of the source, there's a couple minor changes, but it's hard to tell because it's so low res.

[poochyena]

12 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

It would still be derivative even if they created a new photo from it,

if they edit the photo, yes, but if they are creating a new texture from scratch and just using the image as visual aid, then no.

[Jeppes]

30 minutes ago, poochyena said:

then what reason would there be to not steal?
Best case you get free stuff
Worst case, you pay what it was worth anyways

Well make it a fine too based on the winnings the product made with some system of higher fines when repeated. No point to burden an already ridiculously flawed justice system with these joke claims.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Jeppes said:

Well make it a fine too based on the winnings the product made with some system of higher fines when repeated

so... exactly the way it is now.

[DeScruff]

8 hours ago, Spotty said:

I can understand graphical design teams using resources like this as reference images when designing things, so it would make sense for a design team to have these sorts of archives of design images. Looking at the comparisons shown in the article it looks like it's a lot more than artists using the photographs from the design book as reference images to create their own creations though. The similarities between the original image and what is used in game is too great, they're practically identical. I wonder if Capcom's artists just imported/converted the images to be used in the game, directly copying the images from the photographers design archive to be used as assets in the game. If that is the case then I do think the photographer should be entitled to compensation as Capcom is using their work.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the court accepts evidence that was stolen in an illegal hack and extortion attempt.

CDs, Books exc with assets like textures are (or were) fairly common. Its cheaper and more time efficient then hiring enough texture artists to make the literal hundreds of textures you need in a game. Heck someone recently found the source of the backgrounds of old Pokemon cards: https://www.destructoid.com/classic-pokemon-cards-background-art-source/
I am 90% sure early Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, and probably any trading card game uses such stock photo libraries to be used as backgrounds for their cards.
 

Pretty much buying one of those CDs was like buying an asset pack on the Unity store, or a bunch of stock photos (of textures) in pre-internet times. Though I guess some have a non commercial license? Its pretty much like how all sound effects added in post come from some sound library the studio purchased. You usually will keep the original file on a server and use it as a "master".

I'm gonna guess that someone lets say ~20-25 years ago bought a bunch of these asset CDs, and didn't check what the conditions were for using them, or the conditions were mistranslated. (We are talking early 2000s, English book, Japanese game developer.) The files were then put on the "asset" server, and the artists of the games have been using them ever since.

[Master Delta Chief]

This feels pretty far fetched considering these aren't her designs but just a bunch of photos that the individual took several years ago. It's obnoxious for someone or hell even a company to act like this. Like if it was their design, I might respond different depending on the context but this is something else, it's just a bunch of pictures from good looking textures and what not. 

[Jet_ski]

10 hours ago, TetraSky said:

From the amazon page, the full back cover description : 

If that's all the description says, then I would be under the impression I didn't need to contact them to use these files in my projects and that whatever I paid for the book/disc would cover the licensing cost.

It literally says it OFFERS files that are "ready to be used in your *stuff*". So unless it says somewhere on the physical product "contact *blank* for commercial licensing" or something similar, then I would take this as a shameless money grab from the photographer.

Yes, it's very likely to be their work from all the evidences found (from the filenames that were leaked by hackers being the same, to the textures and all). But sorry, you sold your photos.

 

If anything, that description further exemplify that these pictures can be used if you buy it (and looking at the reviews on Amazon, I somehow very much doubt they are also paying licensing fees).

 

Is it just something that is "par for the course" and is such common sense that everybody should know without them mentioning it anywhere ? They sold their pictures in a bundle, but whoever buys them is still expected to contact the photographer to give extra money if they want to use said pictures in anything, even if it's not actually explicitly mentioned ? What kind of business model is that.

If you buy a movie, they explicitly include a license which says it's only for personal viewing and not commercial purposes. But the book and CD she sold make no such claims. She must have had a hell of a patent trolling lawyer contact her. The lawyer will get about half of the money if they win. When they lose, nobody will buy her books!

[Kisai]

44 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

This feels pretty far fetched considering these aren't her designs but just a bunch of photos that the individual took several years ago. It's obnoxious for someone or hell even a company to act like this. Like if it was their design, I might respond different depending on the context but this is something else, it's just a bunch of pictures from good looking textures and what not. 

 

This is the problem, the photographer doesn't own the subject of the photos, only the digital photos themselves.

 

As I said on the first page, it's entirely possible for someone to make the textures from scratch, using raytracing, or just going outside and taking their own dang photos. 

 

Basically, as mentioned in the filing inself, they are using the hacker information as proof that they used the CD-rom "low resolution" files and not the licensed high resolution ones, which would have been irrelevant for 2005 (when Resident Evil 4 was released)  since high resolution images aren't ever used as textures on gamecube/ps2 hardware. Perhaps Capcom modelers used them as placeholders, or used them with assumptions that is what they were for.

 

Really the only "damning" evidence at all here is the logo. Even though it's transformative, it's difficult to create that image by coincidence.

 

Bricks, Stones and glass, can be coincidences simply because a lot of these things aren't unique to begin with. The trim around the doors and mirror, not a coincidence.

 

Now, it seems like they are trying to say that "Capcom improperly licensed (read didn't) these files" and pointing out the uniqueness of the images. Which is fine, but any reasonable person doesn't stop and admire the trim on the mirror or door and Capcom could have easily replaced the textures there, even retroactively with the PC, Android and Switch versions.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

This is going to be an interesting case. Because its pretty obvious they used the image files from the CD. The descriptions from the Book aren't a license for commercial use. That's going to be the core issue. I do think the thought that someone just added it to an asset pile 20+ years ago is likely correct, and it was actually an innocent mistake. Still, it was a mistake and Copyright law is quite something else.

[Bombastinator]

12 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Wait did i understand it correctly that she's basically sueing Capcom because they made textures of wood, stone, etc. and claims they're based on her images because they happen to also include wood, etc?

 

Or is it really full "pictures" that they implemented as ingame pictures?

Wait…. This happened in 1996 and she didn’t file until 2021?  That’s 25 years, or perhaps just as bit under.  What’s the statuate of limitations on this stuff?  For a lot of things it’s 7 years. If it’s 25 years it stinks a bit.

[Kisai]

35 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Wait…. This happened in 1996 and she didn’t file until 2021?  That’s 25 years, or perhaps just as bit under.  What’s the statuate of limitations on this stuff?  For a lot of things it’s 7 years. If it’s 25 years it stinks a bit.

Resident Evil was released in 2005.

 

The allegation is that the files were taken directly from the CD-ROM.

 

That doesn't mean that CAPCOM itself did it. It could have been someone they hired used it once, who had been using it all the time and never had the book at all.

 

Like I have 5 gamedev books (from 2003) just sitting in a corner here, and several of them came with CD-rom's at the time. Now the CD-ROM's didn't contain digital copies of the books (which are huge) but they tended to contain script, assets or even entire projects that would work in the software (eg flash) it talks about. Like look up "learn OpenGL" and the first 10 projects of pretty much every site, before you get to shaders, look the same. Also these books all have a page right before where the CD-ROM is supposed to be glued to the cover that has "this software is licensed to you for your personal use only"

 

This is what I imagine may have happened. Who knows how many times those files got copied, or if they even came from the cdrom at all while at Capcom. Maybe person who owned the book, copied the textures off the cd-rom in 1996, but didn't use it in RE4 until 1999, remaining in the assets in the 2005 release.

 

At any rate, ignorance is not an excuse. And for those of you not old enough to know what the internet was like between 1992 and 1999, there was no image search. The likeliness that they came from somewhere on the internet is quite low.

 

But stock image cd-roms, there were plenty of those back in the day, and I wouldn't have put it past someone having just uploaded them to a ftp site within Capcom without any information as to where it came from.

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

if they edit the photo, yes, but if they are creating a new texture from scratch and just using the image as visual aid, then no.

Which is clearly not what they did.

 

3 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

This feels pretty far fetched considering these aren't her designs but just a bunch of photos that the individual took several years ago. It's obnoxious for someone or hell even a company to act like this. Like if it was their design, I might respond different depending on the context but this is something else, it's just a bunch of pictures from good looking textures and what not. 

So you're saying it's perfectly fine to steal photos? Wow, good take. Photographers everywhere jump at the opportunity to not make any income from their source of... well not income apparently.

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

This is the problem, the photographer doesn't own the subject of the photos, only the digital photos themselves.

 

As I said on the first page, it's entirely possible for someone to make the textures from scratch, using raytracing, or just going outside and taking their own dang photos. 

 

Basically, as mentioned in the filing inself, they are using the hacker information as proof that they used the CD-rom "low resolution" files and not the licensed high resolution ones, which would have been irrelevant for 2005 (when Resident Evil 4 was released)  since high resolution images aren't ever used as textures on gamecube/ps2 hardware. Perhaps Capcom modelers used them as placeholders, or used them with assumptions that is what they were for.

 

Really the only "damning" evidence at all here is the logo. Even though it's transformative, it's difficult to create that image by coincidence.

 

Bricks, Stones and glass, can be coincidences simply because a lot of these things aren't unique to begin with. The trim around the doors and mirror, not a coincidence.

 

Now, it seems like they are trying to say that "Capcom improperly licensed (read didn't) these files" and pointing out the uniqueness of the images. Which is fine, but any reasonable person doesn't stop and admire the trim on the mirror or door and Capcom could have easily replaced the textures there, even retroactively with the PC, Android and Switch versions.

 

100% false. They can't "make the photos" using raytracing, and even if they could, that's not what happened. They aren't making the images from scratch, or just miraculously taking pictures of the same obscure and inaccessible subjects with EXACTLY the same lighting and angle, they're using her textures. What the hell is so hard to understand?

It really seems like you fundamentally don't understand anything about 3D modeling, rendering, or texturing, yet are intent on providing your incorrect opinion.

Really, the only damning evidence here is every instance shown in the source.

 

It doesn't matter if they're "non-essential" in your eyes, they still took her work without her permission and used it in a product they made money off of. That's illegal. What kind of monkey brained tomfoolery is this?