Question about using other people's concepts for Portfolio.
polycounter lvl 8
So I'm putting together a 3d modeling portfolio and found concepts that really caught my eye. I sent an email to one of the concept artists asking if i could use their general idea and create it in 3d and give them credit for it. Another concept is of a model in a game. Now my question is.. if i change/personalize some of the concept and give credit to who created the original concept .. would that be considered illegal? Assuming I do not get a response from the artists.
Replies
...and still giving credit to the concept artist ofc.
Good luck.
Companies have and will issue cease and desist orders to people using their IP.
Even non-commercially.
This is at the discretion of the company of course. Marvel is one company I know who have taken people to court over copyright infringments that weren't for commercial products.
Square-Enix is a prime example. They are very vocal about people using their concepts/work without permission. They shut down a 'Chrono Trigger Ressurection' team who were 3D modeling the 2d Chrono Trigger game. They didn't ask permission and got nailed huge for it, a big 'stop immediately email or we will sue'
It's a very grey area. Some people won't respond to you, other's will be upset you used it without asking first.
If you make a character from a game and you don't know if it's ok - remove all logos associated with the character (e.g. a superman logo) and don't mention a name (e.g. don't say "this character is XY". Instead say "this character is based on XY"). Because "designs" cannot be trademarked and copyright law allows you to do a derivative work when credit is given ("based on ...").
Now some characters get "destroyed" when removing logos. What's superman without his trademark logo on the chest? But for many other characters this approach works fine.
One word of caution though - if you live in a sue happy country (USA?) - you might still want to reconsider. Even though you are theoretically right, hiring a lawyer to fight off any corporate goons may still be expensive. Being right doesn't help you when you're broke afterwards
p.s. also I'm no lawyer...and I just became aware that I'm giving (c) advice while being based in China....haha the irony
If you simply want to model it, then just go for it, stick it in the WAYWO thread if you want... just only put it in your folio if the original concept artist says yes.
To the OP: I think you'll be fine if you credit the original artist and don't make money off it.
Anyway, I'd follow the advice of those suggesting you label it "based on" such and such works because you can't copyright ideas. And avoid using any trademarks.
copying someone else's work isn't "new art"
Parody and re-interpretations are usually fine. Although some companies will still sue if they feel you're dragging their brand through the mud. But it didn't sound like this was the case here.
I encourage people to be as origninal as they possibly can.
You'd be right if someone copied the concept art in its entirety and posted it as their own, but that's not the issue here. This is using someone's ideas (emphasis on ideas) and transforming them to a new medium. If you disagree with that, you should tell everyone that started all the Warhammer Axe threads that what they're doing is wrong.
Animesh
Mark Dygert
Nerf Bat Ninja
redPower
Mike9019
These people all took a concept created by artists that work at Mythic and created 3D versions based on those concepts. Are you going to tell them they copied work by someone else? They all put in time and effort to create those new works that didn't previously exist. Were they based on the ideas of others? Yes, but nobody can own ideas. Did they put effort into creating them with nothing but an idea. Yes, so they didn't copy. Did they simply copy it? No, they adapted it. You're setting a bad precedent if you tell people that they can't use ideas that others have published to create something entirely new (creating 3D versions of 2D concepts from scratch is a new work). Publishing art does not give you rights to any and all derivative works that come from that work. Just because their 3D Warhammer Axe looks like the axe in their concept image, doesn't mean they "copied" it. If you follow the threads, you see that they put real effort into making those new works and they are definitely not copies.
There is no such thing as originality. Everything is based on everything else.
Um, yeah that's not what I saw the first time I read it. Just making a copy of a concept and then slapping your own work on it is not a new work, unless you can change it significantly enough to be considered "new". That was a miss-read on my part. Creating a 3D version of a concept is perfectly fine and you don't need permission.
1) the law says it's not new work. You have created a copy in another medium. Copyright prohibits derivative works and copies.
2) I encourage people to create the most original art possible because original art is worth more than unoriginal art. And you'll make much more money being original and working on original IP. Especially if you are the one who came up with the idea. So you may as well as get used to being original right now. You can't make money off the toy rights if you don't own the IP in the first place.
3) when you're a student you have a kind of freedom that does not exist when you're employed by studio. So why not flex your wings and fly? If you work at a studio then why are you copying someone else's work outside of work?
When I was in art school we used to sit around in cafes and spout stuff like this. I soon found out that this is just wrong. You need to look around at the art people are making. It turns into an excuse that limits your growth.
Of course I understand that it can be a great learning exercise to copy a concept. But do not mistake it for being the penultimate goal of making art for games.
As for the game stuff, it's up to you. I think it's fair to consider it fan art ... but it also depends on the way you go at it. (replica of the original model vs personal interpretation)
Sorry Greevar, but the question of it being legal or not is quite irrelevant here (ie : a real world scenario that you didn't think of, regardless of your theoretical knowledge of fine print text). Of course it's not illegal, but that's not the point.
Let's say he models something from an artist or a company that, despite it being (maybe) legal, just doesn't like the fact that he didn't ask before hand. Well, that would be a bit of a stupid move from someone trying to break in. Also, if another applicant of similar execution skill shows more originality in his or her work, the balance will tip in favor of this person, instead of the one simply reproducing stuff found on the internet.
Simple, really!
Every idea is derivative. You can create something that didn't exist before, but it will be built on ideas and culture that came before it. Take Halo for instance. It's very much like the crusades. Men in armor waging war against a foreign enemy they know almost nothing about over a place that is considered "holy". It's all derivative, but artists just rearranged the pieces and add some new pieces as well. It's original, but it's derivative too. You can't make art that isn't built, at least in part, from what came before. It's nearly impossible.
I have issue with the limitation of derivative works in copyright law. They are entirely contradictory to the primary goal in copyright (to promote the creation of more art). It's far better to transform a piece of art from one medium (e.g. 2D) to another (e.g. 3D) than to prevent it from happening at all. Bad art is just as important as good art. How would we know the difference without bad art? The number one message I get from people here about creating good 3D work is using reference. Well, that's deriving works from what already exists in itself. I think you need to define what is original before you can say whether something is or isn't original. But can you define something so abstract and arbitrary? It's hard, I think.
That said, if the OP wants to take ideas inherent in a concept he likes and create a new concept based on those ideas, then he should do so. If he (or she) is going to just copy it, slap some new stuff over it, and call it new, then he's doing himself a disservice and art a disservice. I don't even know why he would want to do that. It's just tells everyone that you don't even want to try to make the effort to make something that hasn't been done or overdone before. I guess it's important to try to make original work, even if it isn't.
And as it has been said, regardless of legalities and what not, be courteous and respectful of other people's wishes concerning their art. For every artist that doesnt want you to make there stuff into 3d, there are 5 that do
That's a very different situation than modeling something for a personal portfolio. Copyrights are there to protect against distribution. You could make any amount of personal work based on Star Wars, put it in your portfolio, try to get a job with it, and probably never see a C&D letter. The second you try to use it in a mod though, you'll probably be hearing form attornys.
Frankly, if people are that protective of their concept art, they shouldn't be putting it out on the internet. Not trying to suggest that anything out there is fair game, more cautionary advice for anyone looking to protect their work. Not just to project against derivative work. I've gotten portfolios from people with art in them that was actually done by someone on our team. You'd be amazed how often people take other people's work and try to pass it off as their own...and how often they get caught doing it.
In your situation, do try to contact the original artist and get permission. But, and this may not be a popular opinion, don't sweat it if you never get a response. Definitely credit them for the concept art in the most plainly obvious way possible. Put it in big bold letters on the art if you're putting in your portfolio along with your 3D model of the work. Include copyrights if applicable. It should be blatently obvious that the concept art was not done by you.
If you do hear back from them, and they say no...then be respectful and don't use it. Thems the breaks.
Either way don't put it in a mod.
Oh I agree entirely, my point was that some people do have copyrights on there work and that's something all artist's need to be careful about is all. I can't see concept artists however, getting upset unless the work is being sold or profit is being gained from it but there have been cases where people do say 'no' even after you finished making the model or scene off their concept work/model work.
I can imagine! I come across demo reels all the time modeling from concept art and not crediting at all in their demo reel or portfolio site so I can see many indie's/studio's/mod's getting applicants who have uncredited work.
art theft- non credited work - copyrighted work in mod's games, etc is everywhere. It's just a better course of action to ask, model and if they reply no, stop, but if they don't just credit it.
It's just such a grey area where someone may be upset, someone may not, someone may answer your request, some may not; best to play it safe and always ask, even if you never get a response I think and always credit it. I think anyone will be fine as long as they follow the 'if it's not yours, credit it' thing.
True, but in this case personal folio really means personal - i.e. you do not put it on a website, or if you do, you password protect it. Releasing a work to the public (by any means where you can not control who accesses) means you're distributing the work. And (c)law doesn't care if you charge for it or not - it cares, as wrath said, for distribution only.
This is a huge misconception that so many people are afflicted with and I feel compelled to speak up about it. It implies that copyright is a law that is intended to support a business model dependent on the ability to prevent copying, without which would invalidate any viability in such a business model. If you can't control copying, you can't rely on a model that requires you to do so. So many people ascribe to this philosophy and take a fanatical stance to defend it believing it is a basic or civil right. It is not. The constitution provides congress the optional power to create such a law, but it is not mandated to nor is it an automatic right.
The truth is, copyright is there to provide an incentive to create new cultural symbols (a.k.a. art) for the benefit of adding it to the public domain (thus the phrase "to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences") after the creator has been granted a temporary right to control distribution (I don't think the author's lifetime is really temporary, but that is the intent nevertheless). I would argue that asking permission to create new works (e.g. translating 2D to 3D or book to film) based on existing works is more in line with the intentions of preventing plagiarism, but to the detriment of the primary intentions of copyright law. Using copyright law to chill any attempts to produce art derived from what exists, is contradictory to its core purpose and contradictory to the origins of all other art.
All art is derived from prior art. Without the stories from Grimm's collection, Disney probably could not have created Snow White and such. Story writing is based on the seven major story-telling methods (e.g. The hero's journey) or character archetypes (e.g. The king, the derelict, the mother, warrior, the recluse, etc.). These ideas have been a part of our culture for as long as we can remember as a race, but they are foundations that much of our art is built upon. To say that "That is my idea. I own it and you must ask me for permission to use it in your works" is hypocritical in that you've likely utilized the ideas and techniques of those that created works before you. That is not to say there is any justification in copying something in its entirety while claiming to be the author of that work without putting in a fair amount of effort to make something new from it.
So, give credit were credit is due (unless you're an ass, which you will eventually be exposed as a fraud), but mandating permission prior to creating derivative art is not the way to promote the proliferation of it. By the adaptation of others, you may finding yourself in possession of new ideas to apply to your works due from their derivative participation. Bethesda is doing as such by applying the best ideas from community crafted mods made for their Elderscrolls series. Therefore, by allowing others to use your work to improve theirs, you can use theirs to improve yours.