Sims Screenshots Traced For Backgrounds?

[Steamgirl]

Hi guys,

I was just wondering what you guys think of screenshots traced for background lineart?
At what point is it okay/not okay to use them? I mean, they're kind of like "photos" taken.
If I look a photograph of a real life interior that I put together I could use the photograph, right?
So if I put together a digital interior, find a good angle, and take a screenshot, is that the same as a photograph? Why, why not?

Just for clarification, I am curious to hear how you feel about it from a VN creator/player perspective, from an artist perspective, and from a (layman) legal perspective.
I am fully aware that if I need real legal advice I should speak to a lawyer and not ask around on a forum, and I won't hold you liable if you happen give a legally incorrect opinion.

By the way, the coloured lineart is just a quick thing I threw together in 1 minute just to give you a vague idea of what it might look like coloured. If I actually coloured it it would look much prettier.

[Fungii]

Woah, now there's a thought. The Sims would be a pretty good platform for background crafting.
I got no idea how iffy it is legal wise but if it isn't I know what I'll be doing for the rest of my VN

Overall I personally would rather have a nice looking traced bg than one that was so...bad I couldn't help but focus on it.

[Sharm]

If you alter something to the point that it is no longer recognizable as the original image, then it's pretty much okay copyright wise. I also think that using the sims is a brilliant idea. It's actually tempting to buy a copy for that purpose.

[PyTom]

I'd suggest that this is the sort of thing you should do - and then not talk about.

I'll uses as an example a case from music. In 2002, Mike Batt, a composer, decided to include a track consisting of 1 minute of silence on an album. As a joke, he credited John Cage, composer of 4'33", a "musical" work consisting of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

Cage's estate sued Batt over it.

While they wound up settling out of court, it does make the point that if you're using something else as an influence - but you believe that what you're doing is transformative enough that you should get your own copyright on your work - then it's probably best to not mention the reference material at all.

[jack_norton]

I agree, if you didn't tell me about it, I would have never guessed you used that as reference!

[Sapphi]

I thought about doing this too, but shied away from it because it seemed dubious.
I'm much too paranoid and afraid that EA games is going to come after me.

"That chair, in your background! WE RECOGNIZE THAT CHAIR!"
"AHHHHHHH!"

[Dim Sum]

I'd suggest that this is the sort of thing you should do - and then not talk about.

I'll uses as an example a case from music. In 2002, Mike Batt, a composer, decided to include a track consisting of 1 minute of silence on an album. As a joke, he credited John Cage, composer of 4'33", a "musical" work consisting of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

Cage's estate sued Batt over it.

While they wound up settling out of court, it does make the point that if you're using something else as an influence - but you believe that what you're doing is transformative enough that you should get your own copyright on your work - then it's probably best to not mention the reference material at all.

+1 but... http://themoderatevoice.com/114526/fair ... -the-rich/

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2703564

Photographers will argue that 90% of a photograph is composition, not the subject.
Even though a pixelated adaptation of a photo is different, it's got the same composition. For example, that Miles Davis photo perfectly lines up his head and hands to fill the square CD cover. It also uses light and shade to make the subject's features really stand out. So through a the lens a photographer sees through (horrible pun), it's very derivative.
A pixel artist will disagree, of course. They will say that composition isn't as important as getting the pixels just right.

I think the pixel version of this artwork is much more derivative than an 8-bit cover version of the music, yet they sort permission from Mile Davis's estate to use his music. Then they settled out of court. I have no idea why this is the internet's latest crusade.
If they'd have given 1000 artists (including photographers) the brief of an album cover of Kind of Blue, I doubt any would have been so similar to Maisel's. Give 1000 pixel artists Kind of Blue and ask then to do a straight pixel version and they'd all be indistinguishable. And despite the supposed outrage for the rights and artistic merit of pixel art, I haven't seen any pixel artists stand up for this straight copy of a photograph. I don't think any of them would consider it a particularly enlightening representation of their art form.

It more of a case of recognition than stated reference but it also a complicated case.

Offend a purist with a lawyer and better hope to settle out of court.

Threaten a corp because you got famous based on what they think is a set and they send cease and desist on your entire game.

Then there's question of which court in which country in which state is dealing with stuff.

...but IMO being paranoid is also what these people want. They know it minor case but they want people to second guess themselves but I think deep down they also want people doing it just cause it's free marketing and I think while subliminal messaging is dead, pattern resemblance not quite so but only ignorant mumblings from me. Course being naive idealistic newbie, me still have parts that want to "die for my crappy art". If it necessary to crappy storyline than I'll risk fair use but otherwise I'll probably delete stuff like that lamp. I don't think EA will care about chair though. They probably stole it from someone else's generic shape. Too risky. Lamp on the other hand, certain legacy to it in Sims games I think especially basic lamp.

Either end of philosophy, I think amateur artist should worry more about keeping their game online. It's us dumbs dumbs who have no stable home, cash, tech know how that have to worry if a certain site bans our uploads. Those who can set up websites can and will be seen. Those who are banned from having websites can market their torrents as Banned OELVNs and get clicks with hopefully enough people making duplicates that if you die/go to jail, someone reseeds.

[Carassaurat]

A couple of years ago, there was a big controversy over the adventure game Limbo of the Lost. It used screenshots of about ten games and a number of movies for its backgrounds and other art assets, most notably of which TES IV: Oblivion. It was so bad that there's apparently a Wiki dedicated to all its plagiarism! Two of the three founders of its development company had to leave after the debacle (and will certainly have trouble finding employment in video games ever again with this on their résumé).

So using screenshots from other games is... definitely problematic, and I don't see why editing them would really change that, in a legal sense.

Which is a shame, because it looks like it would have been a clever and useful shortcut.

[Nuxill]

If the game is free and low profile you won't be much of a target for company lawyers. I think EA would be more concerned if you were somehow taking away profit from them, making profit off of their work, or using their work to demean it or the company. There's always the chance that someone might send a C&D letter anyway, but don't let the fear of 'maybe' stop you. Keep in mind that if the coloring of the picture doesn't match up with the quality of the line art people are going to be able to tell the image is traced from somewhere. And if someone notices that you're tracing it could be pretty bad. There was a big stink over the PV of the song "Just Be Friends" because the artist traced a couple images, and there's been some controversy over people 'copying' sprites in Yume Nikki fangames, even though some of the sprites were just placeholder or reference.

For perspective purposes using a 3D program is a great idea, especially if you're low on time. But it might be a good idea to change the items further so they don't resemble the originals as much or make a bunch of quick mock ups in a 3D program just to get the perspective right and go from there using reference photos. It's the safer route even if it would take a bit more time.

And finally I would say that a that there is a pretty big difference between taking a picture of a video game and painting over it and using a picture from your house. You own that picture of your living room but you don't really own the picture of your sim's living room. At least that's how I understand it.

Use DAZ 3D or poser software with objects from sharecg.com to make the background scenes, then you won't have to worry about legality.

EDIT: While almost all of the objects on sharecg can be used to make renders for non-commercial use, be sure to check the licensing statement for each object.

This is a much better option. There's probably a lot more stuff to look through anyway, and you aren't bound by the sim's placement grid/only a certain amount of objects on certain tables and desks.

[fleet]

Use DAZ 3D or poser software with objects from sharecg.com to make the background scenes, then you won't have to worry about legality.

EDIT: While almost all of the objects on sharecg can be used to make renders for non-commercial use, be sure to check the licensing statement for each object.

[kkffoo]

EA don't seem to mind about non commercial machinimators sharing their work, and the only case I can think of where there was a problem was when there was a lot of media interest in a particular project made with the sims, and the topic of the film didn't fit with EA's marketing strategy.
So if you make a commercial, non 'family safe' game and use 'made with the sims' in your advertising that would seem to be be the worst position.
If you want to feel safer then it might seem sensible to not use ready made rooms which come with the game?

[bellice]

Now that's a great idea. You can build whatever house you want and then just trace it from any angle. And I don't think anyone could really sue you or prove that the picture was taken from the game, especially if you alter it accordingly.


...Excuse me, I need to go and find my copy of Sims 2.

[Arcanum]

If it's not a commercial work, I don't really see the problem? IDK how this would be different from the sim artists who create stories based on their sims and their lots then post it online.

[HumbertTheHorse]

Great idea - do it!. Don't worry about legality. Like PyTom said, just don't tell. Artists aren't copyright mamby pansies. Artists always used to understand that no one owns anything. If you can use it, do it, steal it, download it - just don't get taught.

[AnthonyHJ]

Generally speaking, you don't mess with big companies like EA (someone should have told that to Zynga) and forget everything that the law tells you about 'fair use' if you are worried about getting sued. This has been mentioned.

To take a more reasoned approach, I'd say not to worry too much if you are not using a screenshot directly and none of their game-assets exist in any recognisable form. Technically, you are creating a derivative work based on their game, but if you chose the camera angle and room layout yourself then they are unlikely to bother you. If you trace one of their publicity shots or anything else where you didn't create the original image, you are asking for a Cease & Desist letter at the very least...