F1 2017 How did a F2002 mod from AC end up in F1 2017???

[Some_Guy_Here]

You think? Seriously why are you making stuff up?

How much do you want for the model, given that the ip that that model is based on does not belong to you?

Do you think Ferrari and FOM are happy that their ip is being distributed on the web both for free, as well as for profit and they are not getting any financial compensation for.

Would you be happy if you ip was being distributed for free and for profit without your consent and without financial remuneration?

 

[Gergo Panker]

I don't think selling an artist impression on Turbosquid violates any law, as it falls under their editorial usage terms, just like the other 25 billion car models sold there, which forbids any commercial use, such as video games.

The mod is a different question, whether free or not, it's not technically allowed to be published without the IP's permission. However as I said, it still doesn't justify taking the model, especially if the response mentions Turbosquid, where it's their terms that are applicable.

Also CM are not FOM or Ferrari, they are a dev studio tasked to create a video game, not the licence owners, so they shouldn't be the ones to judge, only to act in a fair way when it comes to creating/purchasing/using assets.

To quote:
"Content published with the Editorial label may only be used in an editorial manner, relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest, and may not be used for any commercial, promotional, advertising or merchandising use. However, in certain very limited instances, you may otherwise have the rights to IP in content that is labeled Editorial. For instance, you may be the advertising agency for a brand/IP owner or you may be the brand/IP owner itself purchasing content. If that is the case, you may use the Editorial content commercially, assuming you have the rights clearance through other means. But, you must have all the intellectual property rights necessary from the IP in the content and this is usually only the case for a brand/IP owner vendor or for a brand/IP owner itself."

 

[Zinc]

Related to the sale of IP on Turbosquid, seems like BMW is testing this out to see if they can stop it on their IP:
http://www.protectingdesigns.com/bmw-group-files-suit-against-turbosquid

NM... looks like it was dismissed. It seem to be hard to find BMW models on turbosquid right now, maybe the result of a settlement?

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

I don't think selling an artist impression on Turbosquid violates any law, as it falls under their editorial usage terms, just like the other 25 billion car models sold there, which forbids any commercial use, such as video games.

The mod is a different question, whether free or not, it's not technically allowed to be published without the IP's permission. However as I said, it still doesn't justify taking the model, especially if the response mentions Turbosquid, where it's their terms that are applicable.

Also CM are not FOM or Ferrari, they are a dev studio tasked to create a video game, not the licence owners, so they shouldn't be the ones to judge, only to act in a fair way when it comes to creating/purchasing/using assets.

To quote:
"Content published with the Editorial label may only be used in an editorial manner, relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest, and may not be used for any commercial, promotional, advertising or merchandising use. However, in certain very limited instances, you may otherwise have the rights to IP in content that is labeled Editorial. For instance, you may be the advertising agency for a brand/IP owner or you may be the brand/IP owner itself purchasing content. If that is the case, you may use the Editorial content commercially, assuming you have the rights clearance through other means. But, you must have all the intellectual property rights necessary from the IP in the content and this is usually only the case for a brand/IP owner vendor or for a brand/IP owner itself."

Selling or giving away for free somebody's ip without their expressed permission anywhere violates law, and the party whose ip is being sold or given away has a legal right to stop the perpetrator from doing it, and if the ip is being sold for profit the party affected has a right to every cent the perpetrator made from the sale of their ip. This applies to cad models, models in video games as well as physical scale models.

Here is the official disclaimer from Ferrari:

"The name Ferrari, the prancing horse device, all associated logos and distinctive designs are property of Ferrari S.p.A. The body designs of the Ferrari cars are protected as Ferrari S.p.A property under design, trademark and trade dress regulations.

But even that legal stuff aside, I can't fathom how people cannot see the hypocrisy of the position being held here. Effectively you guys are saying that if a modder/modeller steals ferrari's ip then that's ok, but if a different modeller steals someone's model, which is on sale illegally, than he should be condemned outright just because it ended up in a Codemasters game -- and in a modified form at that. It doesn't make sense.

If I were the OP I would keep very quiet about this just in case Ferrari/FOM catch wind of this and pursue legal action against him. If that happens he will not only be ordered to take the model down, but he will also be ordered to pay Ferrari and/or FOM every dollar he made from the sale of that model.

Furthermore, he should be careful that everything he says in relation to this matter is 100% true and accurate, otherwise Codemasters could pursue legal action against him for tarnishing their reputation.

 

[natedogg1867]

...snip...

Member Since: Today
Messages: 19

Joined today just to post solely in this thread. Lovely really.

There is some sad soul out there who made a dupe account just to troll.

 

[Philipp Koch]

lol what the

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

Member Since: Today
Messages: 19

Joined today just to post solely in this thread. Lovely really.

There is some sad soul out there who made a dupe account just to troll.

Yes I decided to join today because I found this discussion interesting enough to want to participate in it. What of it?

Searching for red herrings is not going to help you win your argument, whatever it is.

 

[Deleted member 408599]

Some_Guy_Here


I do agree with you, but unfortunately, in these places, there are so many fanatics that they are not able to see beyond and only hate CM "yes because" and that's it ...

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

Some_Guy_Here


I do agree with you, but unfortunately, in these places, there are so many fanatics that they are not able to see beyond and only hate CM "yes because" and that's it ...

Indeed.

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

Some_Guy_Here


I do agree with you, but unfortunately, in these places, there are so many fanatics that they are not able to see beyond and only hate CM "yes because" and that's it ...

Indeed, there is a massive double-standard here, which can only be explained by blind fanaticism.

 

[Deleted member 408599]

[QUOTE = "Some_Guy_Here, post: 2612241, member: 407628"] De hecho, hay un doble estándar masivo aquí, que solo puede explicarse por un fanatismo ciego. [/ QUOTE]


These groups activate generally by the stimulus slighter than they consider hostile, and they act consequently like a honeycomb of African bees.

These groups disregard and ignore everything that can be positive and stubbornly focus on what seems to them as "someone makes it appropriate to harm them."
Sorry for my English, I'm Spanish.

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

[QUOTE = "Some_Guy_Here, post: 2612241, member: 407628"] De hecho, hay un doble estándar masivo aquí, que solo puede explicarse por un fanatismo ciego. [/ QUOTE]

Estos grupos generalmente son activados por el estímulo más leve que consideran hostil, y actúan en consecuencia como un panal de abejas africanas.

These groups disregard and ignore everything that can be positive and stubbornly focus on what seems to them as "someone makes it appropriate to harm them."
Sorry for my English, I'm Spanish.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree.

 

[Deleted member 408599]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree.

You seem to me that you do a good use of the logic. Some only pawn in burying or destroying to CM since it is stretched to demonise to the big cías, and in the majority of cases for not reason reasonably... A greeting.

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

You seem to me that you do a good use of the logic. Some only pawn in burying or destroying to CM since it is stretched to demonise to the big cías, and in the majority of cases for not reason reasonably... A greeting.

Cheers.

It's comforting to know that logic and reason are still appreciated. I think the ability to recognise a logical argument is contingent on being able to think logically for oneself.

 

[J_SAMa]

Member Since: Today
Messages: 19

Joined today just to post solely in this thread. Lovely really.

There is some sad soul out there who made a dupe account just to troll.

hmmmm.....

 

[Justin Davis]

View attachment 219099
hmmmm.....

Seriously lol... Something is up.

Hell of a persecution complex in this thread too, no one is 'attacking' or 'bashing' Codemasters, just unhappy with their decision to use a community made model in a commercial release without permission. Some are obviously more angry than others but I haven't seen any unwarranted criticism in this thread so far.

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

Seriously lol... Something is up.

Hell of a persecution complex in this thread too, no one is 'attacking' or 'bashing' Codemasters, just unhappy with their decision to use a community made model in a commercial release without permission. Some are obviously more angry than others but I haven't seen any unwarranted criticism in this thread so far.

Let me guess. By something you mean I logged in under another account and I'm talking to my self. Please, didn't be ridiculous.

Don't believe me? get one of the mods to compare the IP addresses, and then you can lol.

And yes, as a matter of fact a lot of people are bashing Codemasters without even knowing the full story and without giving them the benefit of the doubt. And while being completely oblivious to the fact that what the OP did is even worse than what Codemasters allegedly did.

Having said that, personally I have no issues with the OP making Ferrari mods for AC. I would just gently advise him to not advertise the fact, and to cease selling Ferrari ip for his personal profit.

And I would especially advise him to refrain from pointing the finger at others, knowing that what he's doing himself is neither legal, nor a particularly good example of ethical behaviour.

 

[Justin Davis]

And yes, as a matter of fact a lot of people are bashing Codemasters without even knowing the full story and without giving them the benefit of the doubt. And while being completely oblivious to the fact that what the OP did is even worse than what Codemasters

Dude if you think what the OP did was worse than what Codemasters did I just honestly have no response.

The OP created the model from scratch, HE put in the time and work. Codemasters is profiting from his hard work and taking all the credit. They could have contacted him and offered to pay him as a freelance artist for his work and have his hard work and skill rewarded with game production credit. He is obviously an extremely talended 3D artist if Codies thought his work was good enough to be added to their game, so how for example can he acknowledge this in his portfolio or resume / CV / what have you?

And what the hell is Codemasters doing that they need to rely on just lifting complete models, wholesale, from Turbosquid for in-game assets? To be honest that is pretty embarrassing, seeing as how they hold the official damn F1 license. Do they not have the means to create models in-house?

I think your whole argument is just so ridiculously far off-base that I'm honestly having a hard time believing that you are just a neutral party and in no way affiliated with CM. Especially with you and the only other guy defending what they did both being brand new accounts, just created today.

I'm not saying OP has any sort of legal standing to challenge what Codemasters did, I don't think he does. What I am saying is it was really gross what they did and I think he should be credited properly for his work at the absolute minimum, if not compensated financially.

 

[Justin Davis]

Let me guess. By something you mean I logged in under another account and I'm talking to my self. Please, didn't be ridiculous.

And I didn't say that. You did.

 

[Some_Guy_Here]

Dude if you think what the OP did was worse than what Codemasters did I just honestly have no response.

The OP created the model from scratch, HE put in the time and work. Codemasters is profiting from his hard work and taking all the credit. They could have contacted him and offered to pay him as a freelance artist for his work and have his hard work and skill rewarded with game production credit. He is obviously an extremely talended 3D artist if Codies thought his work was good enough to be added to their game, so how for example can he acknowledge this in his portfolio or resume / CV / what have you?

And what the hell is Codemasters doing that they need to rely on just lifting complete models, wholesale, from Turbosquid for in-game assets? To be honest that is pretty embarrassing, seeing as how they hold the official damn F1 license. Do they not have the means to create models in-house?

I think your whole argument is just so ridiculously far off-base that I'm honestly having a hard time believing that you are just a neutral party and in no way affiliated with CM. Especially with you and the only other guy defending what they did both being brand new accounts, just created today.

I'm not saying OP has any sort of legal standing to challenge what Codemasters did, I don't think he does. What I am saying is it was really gross what they did and I think he should be credited properly for his work at the absolute minimum, if not compensated financially.

You're over the place here. I think you need to calm down. We've already been over all of this and I have no intention of repeating myself.

I will finish by saying that courts do not award people compensation for hurt feelings and amounts of work they did, especially if that work led to illegal activity. Courts award people compensation for tangible damages or loss of income, and Codemasters did not do anything that resulted in damages or loss of income for the OP.

The op and other modders are in fact involved in an activity that results in a loss of income to developers who had to pay mountains of hard cash to be able to sell and profit from their models.

It's marketing 101 that if you are the only cigar shop in town, you're going to sell a lot more cigars than if there are 9 other cigar shops in town, 8 of which are giving cigars away for free. That's why licensing laws are so stringent and are enforced whenever it is practical to do so.