• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 25, 2017
1,957
Germany
In a blogpost on RaceDepartment user SalamanderSoldier claims Codemasters used a slightly refurbished 3D model version of his noncommercial F1 Ferrari F2002 mod for Assetto Corsa in their F1 2017 game.

SalamanderSoldier said:
Now looking at the wireframe was a dead giveaway that it was indeed my model F2002 that I worked on for months. I could see all the choices this artist made that nearly matched all the same choices I made. My heart sunk and I felt disgusted. So the only thing left to do is contact the artist that and await a response. Days go by with no response except that the Artstation page is now taken down. I've received no response by either the artist or Codemasters as of this time.


f2002_cm_000psj5p.jpg

f2002_my_000vxji3.jpg


f2002_cm_00290k35.jpg

f2002_my_002zyk9y.jpg




Other users got themselves access to the wireframe model used in F1 2017 and compared it to the AC mod:
gxelrpgcdjnm.png




Limited slip differential lock if old



UPDATE: He got a reply from Codemasters and posted in the comments without updating his blogpost:
f2002_my_007-jpg.218873
 

TheZynster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,285
Oh....they are going to purchase his model due to what happened.....this guy might get hired in the future

They did mention they found it for free so I wonder where they grabbed it from initially
 
OP
OP
TylerDurden4321
Oct 25, 2017
1,957
Germany
On the OP update:
"provided excellent reference" my ass. 95% of this is looks like a direct copy and paste ...going from the mesh.
Well at least they admitted a part of it and the guy gets some money.

They did mention they found it for free so I wonder where they grabbed it from initially
They probably just downloaded his AC mod and unpacked his files. AC mods just use some self-developed packing as encryption I think.
 

TheZynster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,285
On the OP update:
"provided excellent reference" my ass. 95% of this is looks like a direct copy and paste ...going from the mesh.
Well at least they admitted a part of it and the guy gets some money.


They probably just downloaded his AC mod and unpacked his files. AC mods just use some self-developed packing as encryption I think.

ah ok, never played Assetto so, would have no idea how easy it was to just rip apart everything.
 

geek eternal

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23
"Hey, we didn't steal your work per se, but like it so much here is some money. PS. please don't sue..."
LOL
 

Faddy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,150
I assume this is like any other copyright issue. The artist published his work and allowed people to download and use for free. What limitations did he put on the use of his work?
 

MMaRsu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,716
Wow this seems pretty shady. First they use his original files and then only pay the guy 159 dollars, while this game sells like hot cakes.
 

Faddy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,150
Anyone got a link to the model up for sale on tuebosquid?

Looked it up and if it is sold with Editorial Use Restrictions then Codemasters appears to be in the clear

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-f2002-schumacher-barrichello/1073183
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-f2002-schumacher-barrichello/1073183
I think this is the same model and it is sold with Editorial Use Rights.

Content published with the Editorial label may only be used in an editorial manner, relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest, and may not be used for any commercial, promotional, advertising or merchandising use. However, in certain very limited instances, you may otherwise have the rights to IP in content that is labeled Editorial. For instance, you may be the advertising agency for a brand/IP owner or you may be the brand/IP owner itself purchasing content. If that is the case, you may use the Editorial content commercially, assuming you have the rights clearance through other means. But, you must have all the intellectual property rights necessary from the IP in the content and this is usually only the case for a brand/IP owner vendor or for a brand/IP owner itself. As a rule of thumb, if you wonder if you have these rights, you don't. It is usually very clearly set forth in a contract. The burden and risk of confirming these rights is on each user individually if they move away from the Editorial Use restrictions. For everyone else, these Editorial restrictions include not using that material in the following ways:

  1. Products may not be used on any item/product for re-sale, such as a video game or t-shirt.
  2. Products may not be used as part of billboard, trade show or exhibit display.
  3. Products may not be used in any defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful manner whether directly or in context or juxtaposition with specific subject matter.
  4. The material may not be incorporated into a logo, trademark or service mark. For example, you can't use Editorial content to create a logo design.
  5. The material may not be used for any commercial, non-news related purpose.

So since Codemasters hold the license to sell games with Ferrari cars they are entitled to put this in their game and sell it.
 

Vadara

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,565
Gotta love how Capitalism means that collectively collaborating and expanding on others' work is a grave sin!
 

mute

â–˛ Legend â–˛
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,128
Hey nice work, we'll be paying attention to you in the future and if you don't burn any bridges....ehh..don't sue us, might be interested in working together in the future.
 

unicornKnight

â–˛ Legend â–˛
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,204
Athens, Greece
Wow this seems pretty shady. First they use his original files and then only pay the guy 159 dollars, while this game sells like hot cakes.
For you it may sound like this but the guy who copied it is a regular guy like you and me who found something online, made sure it wasn't locked behind a license etc so he did nothing wrong. I'm an application developer (not games, web services) and we use code we find online all the time as long as it's free and works fine. Imo it's good for them that they didnt deny using his model and also the guy may end up getting a job there or somewhere else.

Edit I realize this is an old thread I was searching for an OT and found it, sorry.
 

P-MAC

Member
Nov 15, 2017
4,477
lol "yeah we stole your work but it's ok we'll buy it now, also it's as good as our best staff so well done, don't sue us and maybe we'll steal some of your shit again" go fuck yourselves
 

New Fang

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,542
Codemasters look like jerks IMO. First they ignored the guy for a couple months, then they finally reply but don't even completely admit they used his model.
 

xrnzaaas

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,125
Same thing happens with graphics on t-shirts, unless the company is caught and the theft made public they don't see it as a problem. And even then instead of publicly apologizing they're giving you some money to just shut up.
 

Stuart

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
785
He should contact a lawyer. Unless his mod had very specific licensing terms for free/commercial reuse, they owe him money.
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,703
Odds are one of their artists did it and nobody knew until he pointed it out. Not really that big a deal, Codemasters paying for the model really fixes any issue there was anyway.
 

isual

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
667
You guys dont understand. It is business. Nothing harmful. if anything, this is how it is.
 

Stuart

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
785
Odds are one of their artists did it and nobody knew until he pointed it out. Not really that big a deal, Codemasters paying for the model really fixes any issue there was anyway.
Nope. Paying in retrospect does not compensate for the commercial advantage they gained by stealing someone's work. They need to offer a proper settlement.
 

munancho

Banned for suspected use of alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
394
Tossed a coupla dollars just to shut up his holla!
 

Geoff

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,115
Nope. Paying in retrospect does not compensate for the commercial advantage they gained by stealing someone's work. They need to offer a proper settlement.

If there was to be a settlement it would be to make good the artist's loss. His loss is the money they should have paid to licence his stuff. They have paid that.
 

Issen

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,825
If Codemasters were allowed to simply pay the regular license fee to get away with this without any repercussions, then why would anyone EVER pay the license fee up-front? Just wait until you're caught. Net gain if you don't get found out, no loss if you do.

Codemasters MUST offer a proper settlement and, if they don't, they should be taken to court.

On the other hand there's the issue of whether or not the original artist is legally entitled to use the Ferrari license, even when taking the editorial use restriction into account. I really don't know about that.
 

Stuart

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
785
If there was to be a settlement it would be to make good the artist's loss. His loss is the money they should have paid to licence his stuff. They have paid that.
If I steal something from a shop and get caught, I can't just pay for whatever I stole to evade justice. That's not now the law works.
 

Ossom

Member
Oct 31, 2017
821
Depends on jurisdiction, but under English law he could claim for one of two things: 1) the license fee that he would have received, or 2) the money that was made from his work. My understanding is that it is his choice as to which one to seek.

Codemasters have opted to pay him option 1 as it was very easy to see how much the license fee would be (plus it is not very much at all). It's hard to know what profit was made from that single design within the larger game, but you could do some sums, or more easily ascertain this if this design was stand-alone dlc.
 

BernardoOne

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,289
Lol, that "as a gesture of good will" statement is such gross bullshit. Paying what you should have paid before is not a gesture of good will, it's the bare damn minimum.
 

Geoff

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,115
If I steal something from a shop and get caught, I can't just pay for whatever I stole to evade justice. That's not now the law works.

It is how it works in civil cases like this. If you are suing someone, then you are telling the judge that person x has caused you to suffer loss. The remedy is to quantify that loss and make it good. The loss has already been quantified and made good, hence no case. This is not a criminal matter and so comparisons with shoplifting are not relevant.
 

Stuart

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
785
It is how it works in civil cases like this. If you are suing someone, then you are telling the judge that person x has caused you to suffer loss. The remedy is to quantify that loss and make it good. The loss has already been quantified and made good, hence no case. This is not a criminal matter and so comparisons with shoplifting are not relevant.
This is incorrect. Civil cases can still provide compensation far beyond the original loss.
 

Geoff

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,115
This is incorrect. Civil cases can still provide compensation far beyond the original loss.

From an English POV (Codemasters being an English company - albeit there is an international element here also, admittedly) punitive damages are rare and only used in specific circumstances, of which this is not one iirc.