Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Saint_Lane

Licensing - Clamp Down On Graphics

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Hadehariast said:

Name and shame the parties who are pressuring these sites. Be sure to name the law firms involved as well-- their involvement needs to be documented and their behaviour corrected.

Beyond the Streisand effect, an active campaign to de-value the intellectual property can certainly be arranged. 

 

15 minutes ago, Double0Seven said:

Their behaviour corrected? Afaik they are in their legal right (as discussed here) to complain about the sites uploading copyrighted material that is not theirs. 

Im just wondering what happened after only FMSCOUT seems to have been taken down. Despite two other sites (maybe more?) reacting to it as well.

So what has happened in the meantime? Is it solved? Did they get an answer? Is it ok? Would like to know just for the sake of the future of this franchise. 

Quite correct.

If it was legal to supply these logos then SI would have done it by now. Clearly the copyright and trademarks are hard to license - and people making profit from these downloads are being clamped down on.

Nobody cares if you personally use it in the game - you can if you want. You just cannot profit from the supply of the logos - as that infringes the copyright/trademark and the proprietors are protected by law!

 

The franchise is not in danger, that's not even a factor - sure some people might be miffed and throw their toys out of the pram - they will get over it be happy FM'ers.

 

People just have to make their own logo packs - probably a better idea for these sites to show how to create these packs - rather than suppyling actual packs. 

 

Top tip to these "copyright infringers" - you might get away with it if you declare it fan-art. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/05/13/the-messy-world-of-fan-art-and-copyright/

Edited by Smurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically - you could create the packs with no logos in the downloads for the packs. 

Then have an installer that can grab those logos from online sources and populate your packs folder.

That way - not one source is delivering the packs - just a folder with the structure for FM - no images involved. 
And the installer is simply obtaining the file from your Cached internet files, which are downloaded automatically to your computer anyway on site visits.

Technically - it would work - but probably a lot of programming to get that to work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smurf said:

 

Quite correct.

If it was legal to supply these logos then SI would have done it by now. Clearly the copyright and trademarks are hard to license - and people making profit from these downloads are being clamped down on.

Nobody cares if you personally use it in the game - you can if you want. You just cannot profit from the supply of the logos - as that infringes the copyright/trademark and the proprietors are protected by law!

 

The franchise is not in danger, that's not even a factor - sure some people might be miffed and throw their toys out of the pram - they will get over it be happy FM'ers.

 

People just have to make their own logo packs - probably a better idea for these sites to show how to create these packs - rather than suppyling actual packs. 

 

Top tip to these "copyright infringers" - you might get away with it if you declare it fan-art. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/05/13/the-messy-world-of-fan-art-and-copyright/

Oh I just meant future of franchise as in for modding perspectives. Would be a shame if graphics were gone in some way. Hence why I tagged sortitousi in my post yesterday to know the situation on it. 

3 minutes ago, Smurf said:

but probably a lot of programming to get that to work out.

Yeah I think thats the issue. As a programmer I dont think the programming part would be hard, but you need to get the correct logos from everywhere on the internet. Which wont simply always be [team/league/cup] + [logo] on google. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Double0Seven said:

Oh I just meant future of franchise as in for modding perspectives. Would be a shame if graphics were gone in some way. Hence why I tagged sortitousi in my post yesterday to know the situation on it. 

Yeah I think thats the issue. As a programmer I dont think the programming part would be hard, but you need to get the correct logos from everywhere on the internet. Which wont simply always be [team/league/cup] + [logo] on google. 

It might mean having a website dedicated to uptodate links to the logos - all you would be doing is keeping the link itself live and linking to it - which is not a violation of copyright. 

And forum members/mods would be able to keep an eye on them to make sure they are working and live etc. - the world is a strange place but people would dedicate themselves to it. 

That way - your software only has to rely on the relationship to the URL - which could be done by using reference numbers for each logo and that reference number pulls the link it's linked to.

Then some sort of image resizer to get the right size/resolution for each - which could all work in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nonsense, there will always be ways around this as there are with most things.  We all know the rights and wrongs of it so it's up to the individual to decide morally.  

We shouldn't discuss it on here though in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

This is nonsense, there will always be ways around this as there are with most things.  We all know the rights and wrongs of it so it's up to the individual to decide morally.  

We shouldn't discuss it on here though in my opinion

Im not sure why you call it nonsense. Copyright laws make a lot of sense. Just because we want to play our video game with logos doesnt mean we should call it nonsense that copyright laws exist. Not every club makes millions in profit. Many small clubs out there wouldnt like people making money off their backs just for the sake of a video game at the end of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Double0Seven said:

Im not sure why you call it nonsense. Copyright laws make a lot of sense. Just because we want to play our video game with logos doesnt mean we should call it nonsense that copyright laws exist. Not every club makes millions in profit. Many small clubs out there wouldnt like people making money off their backs just for the sake of a video game at the end of the day. 

I literally agree with you.

Not sure what you're arguing against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

This is nonsense, there will always be ways around this as there are with most things.  We all know the rights and wrongs of it so it's up to the individual to decide morally.  

We shouldn't discuss it on here though in my opinion

Of course, there is always ways around things. 

But it's not up to individuals to decide morally - they are just availing of a service that someone else is providing. It's like saying the person buying counterfeit goods from the high-street is in the wrong - but they're not, as there's no law pertaining to owning counterfeited goods for personal use. However, there is a law that prevents the sale of counterfeit goods, and the production of counterfeited goods. 

 

Where one would think that buying counterfeit goods does no harm, you get a knock-off product for a knock-down price, and you save a bit, the producer of the goods makes a bit of money and everyone is happy.

In reality:

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/buying-fake-and-illegal-goods

 

I know this is not the same as downloading some logo packs from a legitimate fansite - I know that - but in reality - it's quite similar.

The point really is - what if an organised gang began selling these logopacks, and started making money from their website, from the sale of the packs - and also this funds crime in your community.

I know people here are going to scoff and call it non-sense - but it's reality and whether you like it or not, if criminals can make a quick quid from something they will.

Whereas, these are legitimate fan sites, and there probably isn't anything going on - but why would a company who owns the copyright take chance. 

If they let Legitimate Company A have the license - or even do it free - then they have to let everyone do it. And that won't protect their copyright in anyway - if they let 1 person do it they have to let everyone do it.

 

Edited by Smurf
Spellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Smurf said:

Of course, there is always ways around things. 

But it's not up to individuals to decide morally - they are just availing of a service that someone else is providing. It's like saying the person buying counterfeit goods from the high-street is in the wrong - but they're not, as there's no law pertaining to owning counterfeited goods for personal use. However, there is a law that prevents the sale of counterfeit goods, and the production of counterfeited goods. 

 

Where one would think that buying counterfeit goods does no harm, you get a knock-off product for a knock-down price, and you save a bit, the producer of the goods makes a bit of money and everyone is happy.

In reality:

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/buying-fake-and-illegal-goods

 

I know this is not the same as downloading some logo packs from a legitimate fansite - I know that - but in reality - it's quite similar.

The point really is - what if an organised gang began selling these logopacks, and started making money from their website, from the sale of the packs - and also this funds crime in your community.

I know people here are going to scoff and call it non-sense - but it's reality and whether you like it or not, if criminals can make a quick quid from something they will.

Whereas, these are legitimate fan sites, and there probably isn't anything going on - but why would a company who owns the copyright take chance. 

If they let Legitimate Company A have the license - or even do it free - then they have to let everyone do it. And that won't protect their copyright in anyway - if they let 1 person do it they have to let everyone do it.

 

I suppose the answer to this is is to never buy or indeed offer to sell said logos/face-packs. If it isn't monetised then i can't see the harm.  I remember people trying to sell mega-packs made by others on ebay and the community acted quite swiftly in condemning the actions of these few.

I agree with what you've said though it's all very true, there are of a lot of perceived victim-less crimes like counterfeiting that do indeed fund organised crime, I just can't see this as being one of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean those sites technically do make money from it. Graphics packs are popular and lead to clicks. Which leads to ad money or anything else. 

It's indirect, but graphics pack do generate money for those sites. There's no way around it.

I'm still willing to pay a bit more for an official solution from SI. Some of these packs aren't well done/hard to install/hard to download and the amateur modding community is great, but SI would do a better job. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's not about whether or not it is monetised, or whether or not someone is earning revenue from click, it's about who owns the Intellectual Property isn't it.

8 hours ago, Smurf said:

 

But it's not up to individuals to decide morally - they are just availing of a service that someone else is providing.

 

If I was to use someone else's property for whatever then yes, I would have to make some kind of decision on whether it was an acceptable or appropriate thing to do. Whether it be the car, the wife, or a shirt of another person.

Same with logos and kits, the image and design of which is someone else's property, In many cases, the owners have been quite clear about  the use of said designs and, as these designs do hold value for the owners, they have every right to limit their use because they are losing a potential revenue stream and it may de-value their property and impact the brand - that is how these things are moneterised.

Simply 'availing of a service someone else is providing' is no defence if you are aware that the service is illegal or in breach of Copyright. A guy I went to school with, many moons ago, was adept at acquiring motor vehicles. If you wanted a BMW, you could pay him a fee and within a week or so, he would deliver a late-model BMW.  Usually in the colour, with the specs you wanted. But you can't defend yourself by saying he was providing a service and 'I never stole a car your honour'.

 

'Everyone does it'/ 'We've always done it' is no defence either. Same with music, you pay for a CD, or a download, and you are buying the right to store it and play it and the licence to make ONE digital copy of it. 

 

I have no issue paying a small fee for a logo pack, or kit pack, or face pack, but 'morally', I need to know I am buying it from the person who actually OWNS what I am paying for.

 

Edited by Snorks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stealing a car is a far cry from copying that car and reselling it. You've taken a possession from another person and sold to another person for money.

That's different to copying a product and selling it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2019 at 08:00, Smurf said:

But they don't have to prove they are making money directly from it - it's not something they have to do.

It's their logo, it's their trademark and if they don't want anyone sharing them - they can ask you to stop.

A dick-move - yes! But it's their right.

 

Not really the point though is it - the fact that logo packs are shared online that are printable are the issue. 

And these may not be printable - but what is stopping someone taking that logo pack and making a game for Mobile Phones using the logos? 

Or stop other people using the logos to send out "official messages" from the clubs in emails and scamming people? 

There's more to it than just print. But misusing the logos can be done in so many ways.

Technically - with my skills as a Graphic Designer - I could write a script for the logo pack to generate an email and use the club logo - use a generic logo asking for subscription fees for the club.

I could buy an email database from a nefarious site online - and blast out emails to MILLIIONS of people purporting to be from A Club asking them to send money to my account asking for whatever narrative I can come with it.

 

That's something that can actually be done - easily. 

So can you blame them for protecting their logo and rights?

Sorry I am completely lost now. 

 

All along you have said: 

Quote

you just can't profit from distributing the packs - which is the problem.

Which is fine, I completely understand that. But then you change what you are saying in that it doesn't matter if they are making a profit from them, you just can't share them?!

 

So, if you can't share logos/images/faces whatever due to copyright, then how come I can google them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Double0Seven said:

I mean those sites technically do make money from it. Graphics packs are popular and lead to clicks. Which leads to ad money or anything else. 

It's indirect, but graphics pack do generate money for those sites. There's no way around it.

I'm still willing to pay a bit more for an official solution from SI. Some of these packs aren't well done/hard to install/hard to download and the amateur modding community is great, but SI would do a better job. 

 

If you're waiting for SI to outbid EA for their 'exclusive Premier League licence' I think you may be waiting a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, davehanson said:

Sorry I am completely lost now. 

 

All along you have said: 

Which is fine, I completely understand that. But then you change what you are saying in that it doesn't matter if they are making a profit from them, you just can't share them?!

 

So, if you can't share logos/images/faces whatever due to copyright, then how come I can google them?

I said you can't profit from the distribution - said nothing about sharing. 

But if you run a website, and share the graphics through the website, your website is generating traffic, which in turn generates you a profit through advert links/clicks and such other web activities.

 

You can google them - they are there to download for your own personal use. You just can't package them in such a way and make them available to people through your own website which would generate you a revenue. 

I said from the start - you're more than welcome to make your own logo/face packs as much as you like. How come you can google them? Because websites are searchable, if they weren't you would never find anything you want, and Google is a search engine. But just because you find an image online doesn't mean that image is not copyrighted. This is what a lot of people think, that "Googled" images are free to use. They are certainly not available to use freely, and I don't say this lightly, even for free personal use there is still some degree of copyright protection, although nobody would give a flying monkeys if you did. But you can certainly not use them freely comercially. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smurf said:

I said you can't profit from the distribution - said nothing about sharing. 

But if you run a website, and share the graphics through the website, your website is generating traffic, which in turn generates you a profit through advert links/clicks and such other web activities.

 

You can google them - they are there to download for your own personal use. You just can't package them in such a way and make them available to people through your own website which would generate you a revenue. 

I said from the start - you're more than welcome to make your own logo/face packs as much as you like. How come you can google them? Because websites are searchable, if they weren't you would never find anything you want, and Google is a search engine. But just because you find an image online doesn't mean that image is not copyrighted. This is what a lot of people think, that "Googled" images are free to use. They are certainly not available to use freely, and I don't say this lightly, even for free personal use there is still some degree of copyright protection, although nobody would give a flying monkeys if you did. But you can certainly not use them freely comercially. 

 

 

But that isn't what you said in your post that I quoted. You said 

 

Quote

But they don't have to prove they are making money directly from it - it's not something they have to do.

It's their logo, it's their trademark and if they don't want anyone sharing them - they can ask you to stop.

A dick-move - yes! But it's their right.

 

And, going back to the point about making a profit. They do HAVE to prove that the website is making a profit directly from the images they are sharing. That is nigh on impossible to do. There is a reason that, and it isn't just FM related, these sort of things have not been taken to court before and that is because the clubs/their legal advisers know that they couldn't prove it. Whilst it remains, what people assume to be, a grey area the clubs feel that the threat of legal action will be enough to dissuade some sites from hosting these images - which has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, davehanson said:

But that isn't what you said in your post that I quoted. You said 

 

 

And, going back to the point about making a profit. They do HAVE to prove that the website is making a profit directly from the images they are sharing. That is nigh on impossible to do. There is a reason that, and it isn't just FM related, these sort of things have not been taken to court before and that is because the clubs/their legal advisers know that they couldn't prove it. Whilst it remains, what people assume to be, a grey area the clubs feel that the threat of legal action will be enough to dissuade some sites from hosting these images - which has happened.

I don't know what part you are having issue with - or what part I've said that is confusing you. 

It might be that it's taken out of context - I don't know. 

But at the end of the day - they don't have to prove you're making money from it - they have every right to serve a cease and desist order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smurf said:

I don't know what part you are having issue with - or what part I've said that is confusing you. 

It might be that it's taken out of context - I don't know. 

But at the end of the day - they don't have to prove you're making money from it - they have every right to serve a cease and desist order.

Of course they have the right. But a cease and desist order is not legally binding unless it is issued by a court. And, to get a court to issue one would mean that whoever was bothered by these people/websites making these packs would have to take the case to court. And, whatever you might think, they are going to be reluctant to do this having had their fingers burnt before.

 

And the part I am having issue with is that in one post you say there is no problem with sharing the packs as long as you don't make money from them. Then in another post you say they won't care if you are making money from it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, davehanson said:

Of course they have the right. But a cease and desist order is not legally binding unless it is issued by a court. And, to get a court to issue one would mean that whoever was bothered by these people/websites making these packs would have to take the case to court. And, whatever you might think, they are going to be reluctant to do this having had their fingers burnt before.

No - you are incorrect - anyone can send a cease and desist other, but it's usually a lawyer, and you don't need a court order to do so.

And a Cease and Desist order is legally binding. I send them all the time when somoene rips off my graphic design work - I send a cease and desist order which orders them to stop using the material or they will face legal proceedings. If they don't cease and desist I can take them to court - usually the small claims court - but I can do it myself withou the need for a lawyer.

If they don't cease and desist then they can proceed with legal court orders to get them in front of a judge.

59 minutes ago, davehanson said:

And the part I am having issue with is that in one post you say there is no problem with sharing the packs as long as you don't make money from them. Then in another post you say they won't care if you are making money from it or not.

And I don't think I said that - and if I did it was an error and not something which was meant to be said.

I really don't see where I said that at all - apologies if it came off that way - it was unintended.

<had to remove because I worded it completely inaccuartely and need to leave to go home> 

 

 

Edited by Smurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<redacted>

Edited by Smurf
have to go don't have time to review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Smurf said:

No - you are incorrect - anyone can send a cease and desist other, but it's usually a lawyer, and you don't need a court order to do so.

And a Cease and Desist order is legally binding. I send them all the time when somoene rips off my graphic design work - I send a cease and desist order which orders them to stop using the material or they will face legal proceedings. If they don't cease and desist I can take them to court - usually the small claims court - but I can do it myself withou the need for a lawyer.

If they don't cease and desist then they can proceed with legal court orders to get them in front of a judge.

And I don't think I said that - and if I did it was an error and not something which was meant to be said.

I really don't see where I said that at all - apologies if it came off that way - it was unintended.

<had to remove because I worded it completely inaccuartely and need to leave to go home> 

 

 

I'm not going to keep going on so this will be my last post on this. Cease and desist from yourself is NOT legally binding. 

 

https://www.lawbite.co.uk/resources/blog/what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-cease-desist-letter/

 

You have no legal right to tell someone they MUST do something. That instruction has to come from a court. The purpose of a cease and desist is to 'scare' the other party into stop doing what they are doing, and to inform them of the consequences (court) if they do not follow your instructions.

 

But, anyway, we digress. Will leave it at that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davehanson said:

I'm not going to keep going on so this will be my last post on this. Cease and desist from yourself is NOT legally binding. 

https://www.lawbite.co.uk/resources/blog/what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-cease-desist-letter/

You have no legal right to tell someone they MUST do something. That instruction has to come from a court. The purpose of a cease and desist is to 'scare' the other party into stop doing what they are doing, and to inform them of the consequences (court) if they do not follow your instructions.

But, anyway, we digress. Will leave it at that now.

Yeh can't believe I said that - it wasn't of course what I meant at all.  I really should be more careful - that wasn't very good on my part. 

Thanks, you're spot on.

I get what you're saying now. I was just a few steps ahead. I send cease and desists a fair few every year. Never had a solicitor send one, nor had to engage one to do so, mostly it just stops. 

Of course - and now that I read it again in solitude - a cease and desist order, unless from a court, is not legally binding - how could it be.

But most people pay heed to them - as if you do send you are basically saying you're prepared to take it to court. 

Thanks again. My bad. I should take more time and not jump the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...