[server_bot]

While this seems like a convincing case, at what point is it morally acceptable to produce new art derived from existing work?

Would it have been fine if Capcom had re-created near identical patterns without use of the book's original digital files? It's a reference book after all.

Not saying Capcom should profit without crediting the original artist. But visual art remixing textures feels more grey area to me than copy/pasting code or someone's writing.

[indigochill]

> But visual art remixing textures feels more grey area to me than copy/pasting code or someone's writing.

Artists use reference material all the time, and as long as the new work is the product of the new artist, it's all good. But directly copying art and then modifying it is still copying copyrighted material.

My understanding is in the music remix world, if you want to feature a song in your remix, you should get a license.

Similarly, my brother makes AMV videos and as I understand from him, the music rights-holders (not the anime rights-holders, interestingly...) will then claim all the monetization on those videos.

[judge2020]

> But directly copying art and then modifying it is still copying copyrighted material.

As my uncle comment suggests ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27426639 ) it's not clear cut. Just because you hit ctrl-c then ctrl-v on an asset doesn't mean what you're doing is automatically copyright infringement, it might be fair use assuming you changed something to a point where it's a derivative work based on the original work.

> the music rights-holders (not the anime rights-holders, interestingly...) will then claim all the monetization on those videos.

This is a Content ID Claim, and it's a system YouTube themselves made up so that companies can automatically start garnishing monetization earnings on videos that use their work in any capacity without having to do DMCAs themselves. In no way is this tied to copyright or fair use.

[nsajko]

> it might be fair use assuming you changed something to a point where it's a derivative work

Pretty sure copyright doesn't at all work like that. I.e. copyright can be (and usually is, AFAIK) preserved across derivation.

[SR2Z]

The OP probably meant "transformative" and not "derivative."

[bigiain]

> In no way is this tied to copyright or fair use.

Contenting ID it _totally_ about copyright. The only reason Google built it is to reduce the exposure they have to claims of copyright infringement, by easily (way too easily it turns out) allowing rights holders (or anyone claiming to be one) to post-fact claim earnings from infringing use of copyright material. Just because Google demonetises your video and sends a share of ad revenue to Sony/Warner/whoever, that doesn't mean you _didn't_ infringe copyright.

[Talanes]

>Just because Google demonetises your video and sends a share of ad revenue to Sony/Warner/whoever, that doesn't mean you _didn't_ infringe copyright.

Nor does it mean you did infringe copyright. There's no direct correlation between one and the other. You can't use the function of Content ID to infer things about how Copyright works.

Content ID may be ABOUT copyright, but in no way is it TIED to copyright.

[ncmncm]

Derived works also require a license.

[fvdessen]

As an artist I frankly wonder what's the point of these texture books if you can't re-use the textures in your own works. It's like an audio sample pack where you can't use the samples, or an algorithmic book where you can't reuse the algorithms ...

[aeturnum]

You can re-use the textures in your own works. You can even create a new original work, using the textures as a reference, and pay nothing. The only thing you can't do is use the reference textures directly in a new work without securing an additional license.

I'm pretty sure that, by volume, most art is not sold in a commercial environment and its creators could use the book without concern.

[philjohn]

Different audio sample packs have different licensing terms - some confer full rights to use them in an audio production, some only in non-commercial productions with commercial requiring a license to be purchased.

Similarly, in this case, it's a reference book - and there just so happens to be verbiage that says "for commercial use of any of these, contact the author".

[moate]

What kind of artist are you? As a painter, I can tell you there's use in having textures to reference while you draw things yourself. It's more like buying an image off getty to get the watermark off but not paying the extra 20 dollars for commercial use.

[prpl]

You're familiar with the Numerical Recipes books?

[bigiain]

> Not saying Capcom should profit without crediting the original artist.

Capcom "crediting the original artist" would have made this even worse for them, it'd then be a slam dunk admission of copyright infringement.

You cannot use a copyright work for free then "credit the original artist" to shirk your legal responsibility to negotiate a license to use the work.

There is no "grey area" here. (Arguably there _should_ be, and the hardline copyright stance the actual law takes is mostly Mickey Mouse's lawyers and lobbyists fault, but that's the world we live in...)

[neoCrimeLabs]

I think the answer to your questions and thoughts can be responded to with "It depends." Truly, these cases and their outcomes can not be predicted, no matter how clear cut they appear to be.

Here's a great summary of some of the best appropriation cases involving art, and their outcomes:

https://news.fordham.edu/arts-and-culture/top-10-cases-on-ap...

[teachingassist]

> Would it have been fine if Capcom had re-created near identical patterns without use of the book's original digital files?

In copyright law this is usually fine, yes.