Photographer Sues Capcom for $12M for Using Her Photos in Video Games
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
I imagine there's fine-print saying otherwise, but I could see how artists would get mislead into thinking the images are fine to use after purchase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
In this case we're clearly talking about the exact same photo. Had someone from Capcom taken a picture of the exact same broken window as this photographer and used that photo instead then there wouldn't be a case.
The slightly mean but correct play in those cases is to:
1. Register your images with the USCO
2. Send them a friendly email that you'd appreciate if they would license your images in general, without explicit examples.
3. Wait for the next update/patch/release that distributes your images.
4. Now you're suing for willful infringement including statutory damages.
The photographer did not create any of these textures yet they're able to limit the use of said textures. Broken system.
These laws made sense when photography was an expensive-ish investment. They don't make sense now.
They're not. Had someone from Capcom been in Italy around the same time and taken the same picture of the same broken window, then they could have used that texture as much as they wanted and the photographer in question would have no case.
Honestly, $12 million dollars isn't even that much money compared to the profits of the Resident Evil franchise. Her work seems to have added a lot of ambiance to it, so consider it a good investment that the almost didn't have to pay.
In this instance I have to side with Capcom. I can see where the artist might wish that they had a per-use royalty though.
Turned the other way this could have been an opportunity to show the value of purchasing this book and CD combo.
Having said that, it does serve as a reminder that you really need to instruct your people on what source material they can use, if you want to be on the "safe side".
The intent was to use her work without paying her. We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed.
- didn't read the license
- had they read the license, probably did not understand it
- had they understood it, probably didn't think it applied to them
> We may assume she already contacted them and asked them to do the honest thing, and was rebuffed.
No, we may not. There are photographers who put up bait stock images on the internet so they can litigate against whoever is using them. It can be more profitable than collecting licensing fees.
Poor Capcom! If only there were somebody they could have asked about what might happen if they ignored copyright terms and the photographer's request that they pay up. If only they had ever heard of possible trouble from lifting others' work.
After all, they have always been happy to let anybody at all sell jailbroken copies of their own games, online!
I didn't say that. You said we can assume she contacted them. I'm telling you why we can't assume that: It's more profitable to litigate outright, rather than seeking an agreement. So profitable indeed, that some photographers (not necessarily her) take advantage of the fact.
> Poor Capcom!
You must've never dealt with employees. They'll just do stuff and you're on the hook for it. You can have workshops on legal issues and they'll forget and ignore it all.
Why the hell would Capcom risk a lawsuit by copying (crappy-quality) images from a CD? To save a few bucks on a multi-million dollar game production? Do you think there's some guy there with a monocle, twisting his mustache, amused by the thought of having stolen the work of some photographer?
I can almost guarantee the whole thing transpired like I said: Some employee copied something and it took on a life of its own. Nobody paid attention to the license. Not everybody is a nerd about international copyright. Not everybody would automatically assume that a random picture of a spider web is entitled to copyright in the first place.