Tank Designs Were Unintentionally Release Concept Art, Not Plagiarism, Claims EA

[eggheart]

and anyway. concept art is concept art. they aren't making money off of it.

the concept artist is, and that violates GW's policy.

And adding to this - saying "Concept art is concept art, they aren't making money off of it", is like saying "modelling is just modelling, animation is just animation, programming is just programming". Concept art is an important part of the process of creating a game and is strongly reflected in the final product. Even the peices that don't make it into the final game are still part of what shapes the games development.

You can't make a decent, visually engaging game without concept art, so if they had gotten away with it they would have been making money off of it. If developers didn't "make money" with concept art, they wouldn't ever bother hiring concept artists.

[Freeride]

and anyway. concept art is concept art. they aren't making money off of it.

the concept artist is, and that violates GW's policy.

And adding to this - saying "Concept art is concept art, they aren't making money off of it", is like saying "modelling is just modelling, animation is just animation, programming is just programming". Concept art is an important part of the process of creating a game and is strongly reflected in the final product. Even the peices that don't make it into the final game are still part of what shapes the games development.

You can't make a decent, visually engaging game without concept art, so if they had gotten away with it they would have been making money off of it. If developers didn't "make money" with concept art, they wouldn't ever bother hiring concept artists.

So wrong man. Concept art is art and as far as I can think back its not illegal to draw Mario or Sonic as long as you arent claiming it as your own and publishing it. This was obviously not meant to be published but more as a side thing for ideas.

If this was illegal then concept artists who worked on Skyrim would be sued by all those Viking history books they used to get an idea for armor and weapons from and drew it straight from the book then added onto it. This is exactly the same, it was unintentionally released.

I would of been sued 20 times over if we went by your standards for stuff I have drawn and things I have copied and made in Garrys mod, its not illegal if it was never meant to be released in the first place and they arent trying to actually make money from it.

They could even claim it as fan art or as a homage to all the great games workshop artists and they would be in the clear.

[eggheart]

So wrong man. Concept art is art and as far as I can think back its not illegal to draw Mario or Sonic as long as you arent claiming it as your own and publishing it. This was obviously not meant to be published but more as a side thing for ideas.

"...as long as you aren't claiming it as your own" - they slapped their logo on it and made it publicly available. Only after they've been called out have they retracted that, and you're assuming that what EA says is true, that it was never meant to be published. If you want to believe that, then fair enough, but I think it's just damage control, especially when you look at how finished those renderings are. Games Workshop, being extremely protective of their IP and and an overly litigious company, would have been well within their right to sue EA had those designs made it into the final game.

If this was illegal then concept artists who worked on Skyrim would be sued by all those Viking history books they used to get an idea for armour and weapons from and drew it straight from the book then added onto it. This is exactly the same, it was unintentionally released.

It's not even remotely the same. Nobody owns the rights to Viking armour and weapon designs. GW owns the rights to those tank designs. Do you think Skyrim would get away with having a story about the One Ring that must be destroyed in the fire of Mt Doom by a hobbit? Of course they wouldn't, because LotR is copyrighted. Old Norse legends aren't copyrighted. It's a BIG difference.

I would of been sued 20 times over if we went by your standards for stuff I have drawn and things I have copied and made in Garrys mod, its not illegal if it was never meant to be released in the first place and they aren't trying to actually make money from it.

If you were making a commercial game, and ripped off content then perhaps you would have been sued 20 times. That's why "Limbo of the Lost" isn't still a game. Playing with Garrys mod and releasing a commercial game is not the same thing.

They could even claim it as fan art or as a homage to all the great games workshop artists and they would be in the clear.

You can't rip off somebodies design, put your logo on it, not have any links or information referencing back to the original and try to claim it as fan art.

Have a read of this: http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ It gives a good example of how strong IP laws are and how they can be enforced (I think unfairly in that particular case).

TL;DR: I think it all comes down to your belief that "This was obviously not meant to be published but more as a side thing for ideas.". That's up for debate, but I think if you ask anybody who works in game development, you'll find that it isn't very likely that art would be produced in that manner, to that level of rendering just for inspiration. If they wanted ideas they would just pin original GW art to their walls, not produce their own (very expensive) copies in fully rendered 3d.

[revengous]

If this was illegal then concept artists who worked on Skyrim would be sued by all those Viking history books they used to get an idea for armor and weapons from and drew it straight from the book then added onto it. This is exactly the same, it was unintentionally released.

Those viking history books don't own the IP to the armor and weapons they added to skyrim (just to point out - viking wore chainmail, not 'dragon' armor)

I would of been sued 20 times over if we went by your standards for stuff I have drawn and things I have copied and made in Garrys mod, its not illegal if it was never meant to be released in the first place and they arent trying to actually make money from it.

You seem to be confused with whats actually happening here - an artist at EA was paid to create art, which looks very similar to a games workshop I.P. and then claim it as original, they dont credit GW, or say its GW, they claim it as their own.

They could even claim it as fan art or as a homage to all the great games workshop artists and they would be in the clear.

actually no, you should read GW's IP policy (found here)

if you cbf reading, heres some quotes from GW

you must not use our intellectual property (logos, images, names etc.) in relation to the worlds, names, logos, or images of any other company.

They can't claim it as fan art, then 'paint' the tank with CnC material.

The game or mod must be strictly non-commercial

so unless the artist made it for free (by applying the decal/logos to it still violates GW policy) they are breaking another part of GW's IP policy

[skitzor]

so let's see here.

1. everyone involved in the release of this concept art (this is including the artists that copied it) thought that no one would realise this is obviously copied material. they copied the tanks to extreme detail and then said to themselves "yeah let's release this for a promotion of our game. no one will notice it's from an extremely popular game".

2. someone **** up and released some modelling practice as concept art.

some of you guys are unbelievable.

And adding to this - saying "Concept art is concept art, they aren't making money off of it", is like saying "modelling is just modelling, animation is just animation, programming is just programming". Concept art is an important part of the process of creating a game and is strongly reflected in the final product. Even the peices that don't make it into the final game are still part of what shapes the games development.

You can't make a decent, visually engaging game without concept art, so if they had gotten away with it they would have been making money off of it. If developers didn't "make money" with concept art, they wouldn't ever bother hiring concept artists.

are you going to get all huffy every time someone copies another piece of work for a bit of practice? to get some ideas?

this is a **** ridiculous reaction on multiple levels. if EA had the titanium balls to release this actual content for money, they would deserve everything they get. but they aren't doing that.

[Marius]

No one has really brought up the most important point: that GW isn't suing EA.

Copyright doesn't mean you can't absolutely do anything. It means you have to have permission to do something. GW does actually give permission for a lot of stuff. Fansites and tournaments are two major things that GW generally permit.

So if GW are cool with what's happened, then EA is in the clear. GW will likely be cool with it because EA makes them money through their licensing arrangements and any dispute can be resolved through a simple agreement.

It could just be a creative viral marketing ploy. EA gets a ton of press exposure, GW gets some profit from loaning their designs for an 'ad'. And this is exactly the kind of stuff that's needed to get a casual browser game in gaming news sites twice in a week. Create some non-existent controversy, wait for the entire internet to pick it up. Sounds like a good use of 'thousands of dollars' to create a single marketing ad to me - most ads done for major companies will cost at least that much.

It'd actually be a win for both companies if it were planned, so you all probably got trolled.

[TRB]

Skyrim would be sued by all those Viking history books

Lol.

Are you serious?

You realise that 'history' isn't intellectual property, right?
the history book creator didn't invent anything in there.

if they did then it isn't history, it becomes fiction.

[Mearehear]

It could just be a creative viral marketing ploy.

This! Trust no one...('cept Scully, cause we all know you can trust a hot girl!)

[Jez]

If this was illegal then concept artists who worked on Skyrim would be sued by all those Viking history books they used to get an idea for armor and weapons from and drew it straight from the book then added onto it.

I think Marius has a good point about potential viral marketing, and I don't see why anyone feels the need to get angry if GW aren't.

[enturn]

It could be possible that the tank models were bought cheaply from a website like TurboSquid to be used as placeholders. Then another department, like marketing, thought they were for actual use.

These videos show Warhammer models that were for sale at TurboSquid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUv165_mJbM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzmj1x88N18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKod4n72grA

[eggheart]

so let's see here.

1. A single concept artist involved in creating this art thought that no one would realise this is obviously copied material. They copied the tanks to extreme detail and then submitted it to their art director, who didn't pick up on the similarity and allowed the files to go through into the modelling stage.

2. An entire team of artists **** up, and after spending many days worth of time concepting, modelling, and texturing an asset for practice, to the same level as all the other assets that will ship with the final game, then created a finished illustration of the copied asset for no reason, gave it a name as if it was a tank from their game, slapped their logo on it...all the while knowing that it should never ever see the light of day or they might be accused of plagiarism and lose their reputation... and then put it on their website accidentally.

Fixed that for you.

are you going to get all huffy every time someone copies another piece of work for a bit of practice? to get some ideas?

Of course not. Again, it comes down to you thinking it was just practice, and me thinking it was somebody who tried to get away with plagiarism, which happens all the time.

It could just be a creative viral marketing ploy.

I really really doubt that... but you could be right, it has generated a lot of press. I really can't see how EA's marketing department would be able to convince GW that making a fake IP infringement would work out well... but that's the type of things marketing people do, so it's possible.

It could be possible that the tank models were bought cheaply from a website like TurboSquid to be used as placeholders. Then another department, like marketing, thought they were for actual use.

That's very possible too, thought I doubt the assets would be finished to that level (as in the custom CC:TA textures etc). If that's the case then their producer dropped the ball.

[Tas]

Call me a cynic but its more likely this "unintentional mistake" is called publicity. They do this everyone gets their collective panties in a bunch an its free publicity. They they hose it down to avoid a law suit.

It is after all EA.

[Anon. E. Moose]

It is after all EA.

Seriously, I can't be the only one that is being annoyed by this argument being thrown around in every "EA does xy" news post.
It just seems a little ignorant.

[IvanTSR]

It's clearly cover story BS. If it was just temporary art they were using as inspiration they would be using photos of the warhammer tanks directly off the net, even with a little "Warhammer 40k logo' in them to remind them it's just internal inspiration, they wouldn't go to the trouble to create finished illustrations using a copyrighted design. Some freelance / noob concept artist has clearly tried to pass this stuff off as their own work, and it hadn't been noticed by the art directors until it was too late.

If your concept art is breaking copyright then you're doing it wrong. The entire purpose of concept art is to create the original designs that the modellers use to create the final assets. No 'real' concept artist would EVER directly copy another person's design, completely render the illustration in an action pose, as well as creating top and side views of the design for the modellers, then take all of that and put it together nicely in a template image with the CC:TA logo on it. It would NEVER EVER happen in a game production, unless the person who did it was purposely being dodgy and trying to get away with it.

IP and original designs are important, you don't mess around with stuff like this. There are infinite amount of ways to design a tank without ripping off a pre-existing design. If you can't think of any yourself it's because you're not a creative designer.

EDIT: Looking more closely at the rip-offs - they're not even just finished illustrations, they're 3d models! They've taken this asset all the way through modelling and texturing, which means each one of those tanks would have cost them thousands of dollars to bring to that stage in production. Money wasted on creating assets based off unoriginal designs. "Just concept art" my arse, how embarrassing.

The answer to your stream of offendedness below.

Who actually models concept art?

A concept artist. In this case probably a lazy concept artist who has absolutely directly copied things from 40k. He would have then shown this to someone who has never seen 40k in their life and thought, 'wow Barry came up with these all by himself - well done Barry'.

Given Barry probably used a tablet and then finalised it all using photoshop it's really not hard to get some slick backgrounding and logo's in there.

Put the conspiracy on the floor and step away from it people...

[PURITy Kin]

I think you will find that all concept art has logos/extra information, even internal development art.

Yes designs will have correct labels, however you cannot put a logo on something when that logo does not yet exist.

You cannot put a 'currently being designed' logo on an image of a 'currently being designed' tank. The logo must first be designed.

Keep in mind the various stages of the project. The design stage is when all aspects of the game are designed. From aesthetics to descriptions of the types of sounds the game's contents will make. This also includes tanks and logo's where required.

This is why it's common to have working titles, often during the design stage it might become apparent to the lead designer or producer that the title is no longer suitable or irrelevant.

2. someone **** up and released some modelling practice as concept art.

some of you guys are unbelievable.

This is publicity, the logo's, detailed background.. EA clearly meant to release some images as 'concept art' for marketing, and these images were selected either by error or by intention for that purpose. Back in March there was a small swag of images sent by EA to media. You don't send images to media of your product, with your logo's unless you want that media organisation to draw attention to it. It's obvious that 'someone **** up'.

The game is currently in the beta phase. This means the design stage is long over, the design team have moved on to other projects. EA aren't going to pay them to sit around and 'practice' when they could be working on other projects while the programming and 3d art/animation teams convert their 2d designs to working 3d content.

fan art

You're correct, places like DeviantArt and Tunblr simply wouldn't exists if it was illegal to use other IP. However, remember that guy who tried to remake Sonic for free on the Unreal engine? Sega sent him a cease and desist order. Same thing with that guy who was remaking Duke 3D. Legally it's sketchy.. If laws like SOPA get through it'll be even harder.

And of course you know the story of that Ma and Pa cake store in NYC. They had a special printer which could print images onto cake tops. They used to allow kids to draw their own images and have them printed onto a cake. The problem was the kids were drawing images of their favourite hero's. Ma and Pa stopped printing kids designs onto their cakes because they feared being sued, and not being totally up to date with what all the kids were into it was too hard for them to decide what was a kids original design and what was owned by somebody else.