Copyrighted/Trademarked content in assets sold in 3D marketplaces

Demian Wright

I'm sure everyone is well aware of the innumerable assets sold on various 3D marketplaces that bear brand logos, copyrighted product design, and such. How come these people who sell them don't get sued? It's not like it's hard for large companies to just contact the marketplace administration and ask for the sellers contact information and sue them out of their every penny. Has this ever happened before? Why haven't I heard about these things? How come these products are allowed in the first place?

I'm asking because I intend to start selling a Spalding brand basketball model+textures online sometime soon and I'm a bit worried. Not a whole lot since I can provide links to +20 Spalding brand basketballs from various 3D marketplaces in a few minutes and some of those products have been up for months if not years, but I'm still a tad bit worried.

Snader

Because companies don't care enough or they're unaware, really. Some of them might even appreciate the brand recognition, though that'll be a minority.

For example, the people at Spalding might not be aware of such sites. Sure they have (perhaps) some deals with E.A. about branding, but the people there working at Spalding's Marketing department probably don't know much about games beyond anyone contacting them.

As another example, look how easily accessible pirated copies of photoshop are. But Adobe, I think, likes how this keeps them the de-facto image editor. Everyone can get it, everyone can learn it for themselves, and Adobe simply puts a high price on the legal version that companies will buy anyway.

Basically, if you're small enough and you don't make much money or become well known, you'll fly under the radar of these companies.

Whether or not it's morally okay... different matter entirely.

Kevin Albers

Just because there are other Spalding branded assets in those marketplaces doesn't make it legal for you to sell one. Spalding could still come after you if they want, although it's very unlikely.

In AAA games, keeping clear of copyright issues has become much more intensive over the years. Often a studio will need to put a substantial amount of work into 'unbranding' various art assets that are made for games, to the point of inventing lots of generic vehicles, weapons, consumer goods etc, to avoid getting sued once the game is released.

Individual artists who make some infringing asset don't have enough money to make it worthwile for the copyright holder to sue them, but the publishers have plenty of money, so they are the usual targets for lawsuits.

Ace-Angel

Depends on the company? I have seen rabid companies like GW not bat an eye on fanwork of WH40K being sold, yet Orea come after people selling a cylinder with their image on it.

Equanim

I'd stay away from putting official logos on sporting equipment, even though it's 3D. A HUGE percentage of the sports industry's revenue is based on branding alone and there are a lot of forgeries out there. As a result, the industry spends a lot of money enforcing their copyrights. If they find you making money from their logo in any form without consent, they'll almost certainly send you a cease and desist order.

Your best bet is to create a similar logo of your own, with similar placement. So don't use the name Spalding, but use a loosely similar font (you probably wont find the official font anyway) with similar placement on the ball. Also never use a recognizable part of an existing logo, e.g. the Nike swoosh or the Pepsi wave, those are copyright as well.

Deviant Art hosted an interesting lecture on copyrights. It's mostly related to fan art, but it has a lot of relevancy here.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKBsTUjd910"]Fan Art Law at Comic-Con - YouTube[/ame]

McGreed

I would actually think that companies should love to have their products in games (of course without getting into the whole association with violence ect.), since it's free adventising for their products. Take for example Pepsi, wouldn't it be great for them if the games showed Pepsi cans ingame instead of noname/fictional cans (or Coca Cola cans for that matter)?

Product placements is already huge in movies.

EmAr

Here's a list of notices which Turbosquid received:

http://www.turbosquid.com/RestrictedContent

Mr Whippy

EmAr wrote: »

Here's a list of notices which Turbosquid received:

http://www.turbosquid.com/RestrictedContent

Wow there are quite a few there.

Many businesses can seem really indifferent to breaches and then the next minute you get the full weight of their concerns focussed at you it seems.


This is why you seem to be best doing a GTA1/Transport Tycoon type approach where the people looking know exactly what it is but it's just called something different.


I'm not exactly sure how far it can go though, can the likeness, even if it's very very accurate, be an infringement?

Or does capturing a likeness come under different rules?

I'm sure the people that make a living from being a lookalike of a celebrity, or tribute acts that perform live music avoid these issues because they never explicitly sell themselves as that item?


Not an expert by any means but it does seem that the big businesses seem more concerned in that case by Turbo Squid making money from their material than the artists who provided it, many of whom still have their websites up and running and selling material.

Dave

Ace-Angel

McGreed wrote: »

I would actually think that companies should love to have their products in games (of course without getting into the whole association with violence ect.), since it's free adventising for their products. Take for example Pepsi, wouldn't it be great for them if the games showed Pepsi cans ingame instead of noname/fictional cans (or Coca Cola cans for that matter)?

Product placements is already huge in movies.

Not really, they cherry pick what they want their product to appear in, or depends on how well connected your cousin is to a guy in the place.

For example, the game HomeFront had to struggle with the ingame Ad's since not many people, even Hooters, wanted to put in a game where Dystopian settings is the norm.