Is he right?
>>27747622
http://www.equestriadaily.com/2016/06/possible-art-theft-in-new-mlp-harmony.html#disqus_thread
Sorry, I'm out of fucks to give
>>27747669
This could give us a chance to give Hasbro a C&D. Aren't you willing to take that chance?
>>27747622
Wouldn't be the first time Hasbro stole something from the fandom.
>>27747622
First off who cares. Second it's not stolen art, Hasbro owns all rights to any content related to MLP. Hasbro has the right to use any fan content they want with no legal repercussions because by law it's theirs.
>>27747760
It's licensed. Even if it's legally fine, I doubt Hasbro would be happy with their licensees going out and grabbing fanart to use under their brand, just as a corporate policy. It's likely they were unaware of the artwork's origin when they signed off on it.
>>27747622
>Is he right?
Who, CMC_Scootaloo? No, he's an idiot. This isn't "the same vision that came to them independently" and it's not at all comparable to creating vectors from well-canonised characters. We've seen Saffron Massala and Ember in obvious, unambiguously show-style ways, but any show-style Starswirl will be up to personal interpretation. And in this case, it's the exact same interpretation.
>>27747683
If someone tries to make a legal fuss out of this, the only result (aside from a Hasbro win) would be that Hasbro starts cracking down on fan creators to prevent this issue in the future. That isn't something I'd really want to see.
>>27747622
Is this nigga serious it's literally a flipped redraw that's some of the most obvious shit I've seen in a long time.
>>27747760
Fucking this. It blows my mind when people think Hasbro "stole" something, it's literally all theirs.
You know how people mindlessly throw on "Oh yeah, characters are copyrighted by Hasbro! <3" on the bottom of their DA image? They think it means nothing, but Hasbro has every right to take them down for infringing on their IP. Of course they don't, but as the artwork is as such that belongs to Hasbro.
>>27747683
Good luck with that, I can't wait to see what lawyers you guys can afford next to a multi-billion dollar company. I'm sure they'll be around the same tier.
Now who wrote this- oh. Illustrious Q. Nice to see he's taking a break from sucking IDW's cock. Can someone point out the hypocrisy that he thinks Hasbro stole this, meanwhile he won't say anything about Fosgitt who will steal whatever for cutie marks because he can't be bothered to draw a mixer himself?
>>27747974
That's not how licensing works anon. Hasbro own the license to MLP. Any and all things under that license belongs to them. Fair use only protects you so long as Hasbro ignores what you're doing, but it doesn't stop them from taking your OC either. And if you try and take them to court, they can counter sue because you're using their intellectual property without their consent.
>>27748027
They still cannot use it without your permission.
>>27748047
I'm not sure you read what I actually wrote:
>Even if it's legally fine, I doubt Hasbro would be happy
I never said anything about fair use or it being illegal. And a bit later in the post, I even said that Hasbro would win any lawsuit that comes up. Did you reply to the wrong post?
>>27748056
Depends on where you post your art. This is probably a deviantart case in which DA is completely in the right because in their terms and services they hold the right to sell the ideas and art posted there to corporations.
>>27747622
Does this mean that art is official now? I mean this is a huge legal fuck up.
>>27747622
>http://emkay-mlp.deviantart.com/art/Star-Swirl-the-Bearded-2-332800279
>The artist use the same name of the show
I should save the page? the artist would use this to make a drama and edit the title of that page
>>27748075
Nope, just a licensed stuff like the IDW comics.
Not canon
The artist could sue, but Hasbro would just take it down.
They did the same thing when they used the Fighting is Magic art on their Facebook.
>>27748083
The comics are still official.
>>27747622
They've done this beffore. Nothing new from Hasbro.
>>27748091
Again, I'd love to see someone try to sue Hasbro under these circumstances. Provided that Hasbro doesn't just ignore them like a fly, they could easily take harsh countermeasures if they wanted to. Now that'd be funny.
But Hasbro, as the company it is, deals with this nonsense all the time. There was that time where those font guys tried to sue Hasbro for the MLP font, I think they got shut down too.
>>27748091
The artist still use the name "Star Swirl the Bearded" that hasbro own and not something diferent like "Swirl Star the Bearded" t oavoid C&D.
That faggot can't sue a shit because he still use that name.
Inb4 that artist change the name of that pony
>>27748056
if you put "characters are copyrighted by Hasbro" under your picture you admit that the characters belong to them and they can use it without your permission because...ehm... they belong to them.
>>27748064
Yeah I misread it. My bad.
>>27748124
guess what
http://emkay-mlp.deviantart.com/art/Star-Swirl-the-Bearded-2-332800279
he don't use "characters are copyrighted by Hasbro"
>>27748116
Even still, Hasbro could easily still sue probably for something like trying to specifically emulate the style, as it clearly is, noting the clothing being taken from something that did for a fact appear in the show.
Basically, the artist would be fucked, so he should really just say that it's neat he got to be in a game.
ITT: people using hasbro characters without permission is perfectly fine, when is hasbro to use their characters painted by someone else hands they are the new Hitler.
>>27748124
The characters belong to them but not the art.
This is not an easy legal court case since copyright law is so messed up.
>>27748144
t. hasdrone
>>27748138
>Star-Swirl-the-Bearded
he uses the copyrighted name
>>27748124
The artist still owns the art, unless the artist didn't make the art somehow he still owns it.
Just like Hasbro may not own your greentext even if it uses MLP characters.
>>27748144
>>27748153
If it isn't trademarked it can be a bit more difficult to argue especially since Starswirl didn't have an official design at the time of the release.
It's a she.
>>27748160
>owning the art of something made without permission is still owning nothing that belongs to you.
Is there an official design for Starswirl otherwise the artist may have the law on his side.
The thing is borderline OC if not.
>>27748169
SEGA went to get permission from an artist that they stole from even though it was from a character they owned.
>>27748167
Maybe we can use this to generate a shitstorm if we use the feminist in tumblr. After all, hasbro is a big CIS white male that stole the art of a poor women
>>27748124
Capcom had to get permission from some dude who was working on his own idea for Mega Man 10 and basically gave him a license to make his fan game in return for keeping his art on the site.
>same name
>same custome that appear in the show
Sup, that artist can't sue a shit
>>27748144
ITT: someone who didn't read the posts ITT
Most people in here are saying it's legally fine.
>>27748165
>>27748172
Of course Starswirl has a design. He's shown up multiple times in show flashbacks, EqG, and the comics, albeit never in the show vector style.
>>27748177
Honestly, I see it as a goodwill thing more than anything else. And that's why I don't think Hasbro would be happy with their licensees doing this.
>>27748177
I guess Sega did it to not start some sort of drama in their fandom. Asking permission is free.
>>27748182
you'll need this
>>27748194
She can, it would probably be settled out of court.
You don't own unauthorized productions of your own IP.
>>27748185
that character was borderline OC
>>27748182
>Actually wanting to involve the feminist tumblr in anything
Don't even fucking joke about that.
>>27748116
>>27748194
>a shit
Your samefag is showing, broken-English-anon.
>>27748195
We have never seen his actual appearance in the show, it is a difficult situation, again just because Hasbro owns the character does not mean they own everything made from it.
>>27748195
>Most people in here are saying it's legally fine.
most people here aren't necessarily right
http://about.deviantart.com/policy/service/
just read
>>27748177
>>27748185
Well shit, maybe they can't.
I guess this is why you don't see companies releasing fan games on their site or whatever.
So I can name my drawing of a dragon "Twilight Sparkle" and Hasbro suddenly owns my drawing?
I don't bloody think so.
>>27748195
I think you still need to credit the artist, you can't force license someone's content without permission.
>>27748091
Oh god, the shitstorm that occurred back then when they used the same background and Twilight vector as FIM it was so big they took it down an hour later and replaced it.
>>27748227
Kind of, in that case Hasbro owns an actual trademark on all the 7 mane character names barring Fluttershy.
They own the name not the drawing though.
>>27748227
>Hasbro own all our porn
Hasdroning:the thread
>>27748227
They do, trademark. Trademark is different than copyright though.
>>27748222
>http://about.deviantart.com/policy/service
the policy change the ownership form the artist to Deviantart. Change nothing. Is deviantart now the one who cannot sue for characters of someone else copyright.
>>27748239
>They own the name not the drawing though
Well then in that case, they're in the wrong for using the Starswirl design in their game.
>>27748243
>They only C&D the porn they don't get off to
>They only C&D'd Molestia because they hated Joseco and his sameface
>>27748254
That is true.
>>27747622
this guy is a fucking retard. Bungie obviously used the fan made Star Swirl model thinking it was legit. The fact that Star Swirl doesn't look like a bag of hammered ass here, like 99% of OCs, fooled them into thinking it was real. This was absolutely just a mistake.
>>27748254
They can still sue her ass for emulating the style of the show, like Jan. There's no way to cut this out into her favor.
>>27748256
Well then fucking a. Tell these people to stop arguing that Hasbro didn't do shit.
>>27747622
>by Illustrious Q
>>27748258
>Bungie
>Insta dreaming of a Destiny crossover with mlp
is Budge sadly
>>27748256
read this >>27748266
>>27748266
They could, but that doesn't allow them to do what they are doing.
>>27748266
They could do anything, she can go to court and say that Hasbro had no problem with it because they let that content in their game first.
>>27748227
...Yes? I mean, it's a slippery slop with fan content and companies, that's why most of them don't bother trying to use fan made content with their products, but Hasbro, Oh boy, they wouldn't care. They did the same thing a few years ago on one of their games and got caught red handed, if I recall, it was a COMPLETE fan made background of the Mane Six cutie Marks, and I don't think they bother to change it on this very day, people just forgot about it.
Then there was another time, as I stated previously, they used official fan made art of FIM on their official MLP:FIM Page on Facebook, and it was ironic because it was around the time when they C&D the game!
They may own everything MLP:FIM related but I do believe they're still in the wrong taking fan made content without saying a thing. Can we sue? Most likely not, Hasbro is a big corp. They will pretty much win without hesitation unless any one of us owns a company or has billions of dollars.
>>27748270
>http://www.equestriadaily.com/2016/06/possible-art-theft-in-new-mlp-harmony.html#disqus_thread
oh my bad
HASBRO IS OUR LORD AND MASTER OBEY
OBEY
OBEY
>>27748295
They won't win, they will just avoid going to court and make you run out of money.
That's how they will "win".
>>27747622
These are barely similar
>>27748301
Hasjew can eat a fat dick
>>27748303
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if anyone gets sued, you have to go to court, you can't avoid it. Hasbro will try to worm their way out by paying a fee of some-sort so they won't lose much. Companies don't like to waste money unless they have to, or if they're counter-suing another company like Disney.
>>27748310
Here's your (You)
>>27748310
CMC_Scootaloo pls go
>>27747622
>stolen art
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR
If people enjoy the right to use MLP characters in their own personal art as they see fit, why shouldn't Hasbro enjoy the same privilege concerning fandom art?
It hurts me to defend Hasbro at all, but OP is truly, truly outrageous on this one.
>>27748177
>>27748185
Slashy fuck off
>>27748230
Yeah, see, that's where it gets messy. Hasbro owns the right to the character -- and it is very unambiguously their character -- but art based on that character is in a weird maybe-zone, and sort of skirts the line between free speech and copyright law. The deciding factor is usually whether the fanart is protected under fair use, which this probably would not be.
>>27748255
...You know, have they ever C&D'd porn? I don't think Hasbro has ever really acknowledged pony porn legally.
>>27748258
I tend to agree. It's like when one of the comic artists used that fan art of Dash's room as a reference in a panel. But if the artist REALLY cares (and I don't know if she does), she could just send the developers a nicely-worded email asking for an artist credit in the game. Personally, if I were her, I'd be overjoyed just to see that.
>>27748364
Hasbro knows not to pull that crap with porn, that would pretty much be the end of the tolerance the fandom has for them. The only companies I know who had the balls to do it is Nintendo, and recently Blizzard with Overwatch.
Hasbro only credits fanartists when they showcase stuff in art books. Generally stuff like this is a licensee lazily Googling shit and since it is show style no credit is given. Technically Hasbro could use any fanart they wanted for money, but don't because why would they when they pay their own artists? Just a dumb article from a hypocrite though. Fucker defends Fosgitt stealing other people's work but whines when Hasbro does what they can do legally.
>>27747622
>Submissions
http://www.hasbro.com/en-us/terms Hasbro owns all rights to all their brands and properties. Popcorn time?
>>27748379
Well, not only that, but "HASBRO SUES ARTIST IN 'MY LITTLE PONY' PORN CASE" is not a headline that any company wants associated with their product. It would make waves and call attention in the worst way.
>>27748330
They can avoid going to court.
>>27747999
Trips of truth. It's not "similar", it's the exact same. They stole it.
Wait wait wait.
There's a bungie MLP game in the work???
>>27747622
>Caring THIS MUCH about a piece of fanart in the bottom corner of a flash game.
What a bunch of fucking autists.
>>27748350
this totally this
>>27748364
>artist credit in the game
Frankly, for an up and coming artist this would be worth more than a cash settlement. It would make Hasbro look good, too.
>>27748350
>why shouldn't Hasbro enjoy the same privilege concerning fandom art?
Because they're different kind of devils.
Hasbro takes legal matters seriously. And I mean VERY seriously. Once they found out that they're profiting from a different IP with no license, they're not going to wait for the other company to file a complaint. They're going to fix it and either get the license to profit from it, or completely drop the damn thing before it gets worse.
You wanna know what an individual fan is thinking when profiting (Monetary or fame) from an IP without a license? "I don't really care."
TL:DR: You can't expect the same behaviour for both sides because they're completely different.
>>27749018
The real difference is that Hasbro owns the right of the franchise and is entitled to go legal when someone is profiting without permissions.
And even when someone is not profiting because the franchise belongs to Hasbro not to the fan artists.
>Hasbro takes legal matters seriously. And I mean VERY seriously.
there is nothing wrong with this. Is their right.
>>27749051
>Hasbro owns the right of the franchise
They own Starsswirl The Bearded. Not the character design for it.
>>27749061
yes they actually have a design for him which is quite similar to the one made by emkay. Also there are minor changes in the game design from the fan design.
Copyright law is weird
itt: people that don't know the basics of IP Law, including the difference between copyright and trademark.
>>27748207
>You don't own unauthorized productions of your own IP.
Not true. The United States Code explicitly states that copyright owners have the EXCLUSIVE rights to reproduction of their own copyrighted property. The ONLY exception is if the unauthorized reproduction falls under fair use.
>>27749061
How many book characters don't have official design, but only generic descriptions (and maybe not even them), and you still can't use them without permission?
>>27749067
Oh bullshit. IDW is willing to use the first result in google images to their comics. It's not surprising they used the first result for Star Swirl, point being, they didn't design shit.
>Pic related
See in this episode? The design that the show is going for is white pony with long straight hared beard. The show conflicts with IDW in Starswirl's design, therefore IDW is deemed not canon.
Don't take IDW's laziness as a factor in finding solution to this issue.
>>27749092
Hi TexasUberAlles.
>>27748379
The funny thing these companies seem to forget is that that Streisand Effect is a VERY real thing. If you make the removal of something public knowledge, you will draw more people to that thing you want to hide, just because of sheer curosity.
Look at Overwatch and the amount of people searching for the porn before, and after the articles started coming out. The same could be said for the picture Beyonce wanted scrubbed off the internet.
>>27749111
What happenned with Overwatch?
>>27749114
Porn. Lots of porn of Tracer and Widowmaker having lots and lots of 3D animated sex.
Most of it was indeed straight models ripped out of the game, and put into something like Garry's Mod. Because of this, Blizzard was hitting the creators of the porn with C&D's and take down requests.
This went public, and of course when people are told something is being kept from them, they want to go see it, leading to more people being interested in the thing, which is the exact opposite effect of the company's intended effect.
There is also the bullshit 'controversy' from several months prior about Tracer's ass, but that's not the factor here. The issue is.
1. Company sees a thing they don't like.
2. Company takes steps to remove the thing from the internet through various means.
3. Public learns about this, and some media picks up on it.
4. Now that things are being taken away, people's curosity is piqued, where before they might not of ever seen the thing.
5. More people see the thing because of the media, and public attention at being told 'you can't have this.'
>>27749110
Nice try, but I don't care if people pirate. It's just the constant people not knowing shit about me that bothers me. Honestly, Hasbro might be in the wrong here since they never had a design for Star Swirl, except for the clothing. Therefore, the fan artist owns at least the pony portion of that picture, which Hasbro used without authorization. (There are other issues that could shift the line one way or another, but that requires me togive to give a fuck enough to research other art.)
>>27748330
Just because you're being sued doesn't mean you have to pay money, only if you lose. Hasbro probably deals with absurd lawsuits all the time. They can avoid taking them to court with their lawyers.
>>27749018
> You wanna know what an individual fan is thinking when profiting (Monetary or fame) from an IP without a license? "I don't really care."
If that were really true, I'd doubt we'd have all these Patreon obsessed artists.
>>27749176
No, because even though the fan created the design, they could still get in trouble for emulating the show's style. This is how it applies for some OCs too.
>>27748254
Wow that scoot is a retard, completely ignoring half of what the other guy said.
>>27748237
Holy shit I missed it. Are there any archived threads about it?
>>27748393
yes, the character and design belongs to hasbro, but not the art a fan created.Those are two completely different things.
>>27749129
Which is a net win BOTH ways for Blizzard.
Do you think they really gave a shit about that SJW complaining about Tracer's butt? No, they just wanted to dodge some bad PR.
Do you think they give a shit about people using their model? No, they just have to be seen trying to defend their IP. That's what counts. If they try to defend it, they maintain a legal claim. If they DON'T, then it's an argument for compliance and acceptance in a later court room.
And what do they get? MASSIVE amounts of essentially free advertising.
If you create anything worthwhile, it will be stolen from you, by another rival, a corporation, or the government. Human beings exploit everything, so tough shit if it happens to you.
Law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten.
>>27749869
I refuse to believe that what Bungle did is steal the Star Swirl design. I do believe however that one of the dev just googled "Star Swirl The Bearded" and assumed the first result is an official Hasbro design.
It was a mistake.
>>27749842
>Do you think they give a shit about people using their model? No, they just have to be seen trying to defend their IP. That's what counts. If they try to defend it, they maintain a legal claim. If they DON'T, then it's an argument for compliance and acceptance in a later court room.
Because it's been such a huge issue for the mountains of 3D porn from other franchises, right?
>And what do they get? MASSIVE amounts of essentially free advertising.
I heard a few of my friends saying that it basically killed the interest they had in Overwatch, and I'm definitely in that same camp. Do you really think Blizzard needed any negative PR when the game was buzzing so hard already?
And you know what else is essentially free advertising? Porn. So, you know, that can be turned around easily enough.
>>27749092
So if I build a Twilight Sparkle 3D toy with my 3D printer, then Hasbro has every right to break into my home and seize my property?
>>27750027
Yes
>>27748980
Wait, like halo bungie?
>>27750027
Yes
>>27750039
>>27748980
The studio is called "Budge" and the game is already out. Nothing to do with Bungie.
>>27750027
Well yeah, but that's why they're working on that fan 3D printed thing, where you get to make those and sell them, or whatever. I know Hasbro wanted to do something with 3D printers and fan content.
>>27750027
Fuck off Slashy
>>27747622
>Vector is almost the exact same with minor differences
Doesn't matter, it's Hasbro's character in their style
>>27750027
No, you own it becuase you physically made it, but if you try to sell it then you're violating their trademark. A trademark doesn't mean so much that you own every representation of the character, you just own the right of sale.
>>27747622
> Damage control
>>27748269
THAT'S HIM?
Dude, talking about ugly and creepy, yuck!
>>27748047
>it doesn't stop them from taking your OC
You can't copyright colorful horses. OCs are safe.
This guy defended TracePonies till the very end (and even after that)
It's obvious that he is the ultimate white knight
>>27749842
I can understand if they're trying to keep their IP in tact, but this is why the internet is laughing at them, because other game parodies use 3D models for R34 and the companies never batted an eye, so what makes this so different?
>>27749129
Pretty much this.
>>27749821
Yup. Reddit, EQD, and Neo. I would post 'em here, but they won't let me. It should be one of the first results if you image search "My Little Pony Facebook page fighting is Magic cover"
>>27750705
What?
>>27749092
But you can't just copy and use something that infringes on your IP.
We always hear this with fan fiction -- show writers aren't allowed to read any because then they'd be open to charges of plagiarism if they wrote something similar -- even though the fanfic writer's work infringed in the first place.
As with fan fiction, so with fan art.
that cmc_scootaloo guy is like angrily retarded, god damn.
>>27749521
The show's style is not copyrightable. If style was copyrightable, artists that are progenitors of a particular art style (e.g. Picasso with cubism) would be able to sue anyone that uses that style thereafter. Hell, Disney would sue the rights-holders of old anime that emulated old Disney toons if that were so.
>>27750731
1. Style is not copyrightable.
2. Making a 3D representation of a 2D design does not violate trademark law, but it violates copyright law because it violates the exclusive right of reproduction. Federal courts have already ruled on this issue. However, the remedy of Hasbro in this instance would not be seizure of the reproduction.
>>27748269
Take yar fokkin spaghetti and fock off.
>>27748210
anon i hate feminists as much as the next guy.
But this has to happen waiting to happen.
plus they will do all the fighting for us.
They are useful idiots .
