video games art really recognized as being a new piece of art in law, but everything else about games (code, assets, IP) can be protected individually. The only time I see people win a case is when the work in question is a piece of art being sold as a piece of art.
Meaning if you take someone else's art, mix it in a bunch other art or even your own stuff (for example, cutting up news papers to make a poster), if you do this just to make a cool advertisement banner or a monetized youtube video, turns out that does not hold up in court. But I mean, if you use a skin texture, and modify the material, and mix it with other things and morphs, is it really recognizable as the same thing?įun fact: if someone tries to attack you, but you say that your work is transformative, in law the only way to actually get away with using a work in a transformative way is for the new work to be FOR ART ONLY.
However, Often, characters can come with other assets, such as textures and other meshes, now that is 100% protectable. Is the mesh just another file format and the sculpt is protectable, or must both the sculpt and the mesh be entirely created by a new artist to be protectable? I don't know of any court cases that goes this deep. to be honest this would be the gray zone of law since law people haven't done a good job at distinguishing what core aspect of digital arts is considered protectable or important. In order for all the morphs to work, every character ever made for G8F (for example) Must use the same base mesh, just resculpted into different shapes. Click to expand.So, as far as I can tell, only daz3D owns the 3D mesh OF THE BODY.
0 kommentar(er)
