[teachingassist]

> "the CD images can be used be artists and designers in developing concepts, preparing presentations for clients, and communicating visual information with others"

This effectively is a license. It's implied that the copyright holder has not given you further rights than this.

As you say, Capcom may well claim that they are communicating visual information with others.

[acomjean]

The defense might press the source of the textures As well. It’s the old if you take a photo of someone’s graffiti, is it your art (the photo) or is the art the graffiti artists still.

Is my brick wall or the marble floor, mansion door or cracked glass the art or is the photo of the item the art...can any photographer take a picture then turn around and sell it?

I guess you always ask for a lot in these lawsuits but the 12million seems high based on the price textured get licenced for today. Not bad for a book from 1996

[rrobukef]

'Pictures of art' does not apply here. The marble texure is a natural, and unless special, brick walls or cracked glass are not artistic expressions. The mansion door could be art. However, at worst, the texture is a minimal part of an extremely artsy door and still fair use due to the transformative nature.

OTOH, every picture was made with the express intent to make artistic textures. Yes, it is copyrighted by the photographer and can be sold.