they are part of the "incorporated product".
The incorporated product in this case is the NFT. Who cares about the game.
.
NFT = derivative work
.
And even leaving aside legality for a second...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
they are part of the "incorporated product".
The incorporated product in this case is the NFT. Who cares about the game.
And even leaving aside legality for a second...
If the derivative work is too similar to the 3D asset. (Here the printing refers to 3D printing of the asset and selling it. As they are both 3D models. Which would make them too similar.)
Whether the NFT is considered part of the game matters. If the NFT is part of the game, the game will be considered for the purposes of the license, not the NFT. As incorporated work would be the game, not the NFT.
There is nothing dishonest or unethical about this, if the proper license agreements are followed, and there is no breach of the agreement. Unless the authors of the works sue for breach of the license agreement and the courts decide there has been a breach, there is nothing wrong here.
I don't see the point of arguing about this anymore.
Selling a game with thousands of different assets and selling an NFT with someone else's work are very much different things.
And hundreds of similar cases on other blockchains back my statements.
.
Right, innocent until proven guilty. After spending 10/100 K on a court case. Everything is allowed until is decided by a judge, sure.
Or just
IF the NFT is part of the game, it is pretty much the same thing. As I said earlier, I haven't played PsyberX, and I do not own any assets from the game. I can't comment on whether they were part of the game or not.
Show me these cases, show me that they had proper licensing and they did not just straight up copy the assets without a license. Show me whatever license they had, if they had any.
You are saying the cases are similar, without actually giving those "hundreds of cases" or elaborating why they are similar.
Even though legal issues might seem similar on the surface, the nuances of each issue can make something a violation or not.
Ethics are subjective, whether something you deem ethical, I might deem unethical and vice versa.
If you are here to push an agenda under the guise of "ethics" be my guest. But don't expect everyone to subscribe to that agenda.
And as I said, as long as proper licensing had been followed there is nothing unethical about this.
Let's agree to disagree.
.
Not really. The NFT has the assets as its main focus. And it generates royalties for its creator.
I will put together some examples of those cases as soon as I have more free time. Not hard to find and some are pretty famous.
Even those engaged in criminal activities may perceive themselves as justified. Selling other people's work without credit or compensation is not.
Sure.
I'll await those examples.
Where we disagree is you see NFT as the work, whereas I see the game as the work and NFT to be part of that work.
If credits are given in the game's credit, then it means there were credits given. In a royalty-free license, payment for the license is the compensation.
And anything would be interpreted in a myriad ways as long as it doesn't go to a court, where which interpretation is correct is decided.
As I said many times, I haven't played the game and can't comment on if there were any credits in the game.
I don't agree. But if you want to put it that way, they are not credited.
. . .
If they are not credited in any way, then it is a breach of license for some of the 3D models. At least for the ones where such a clause exists.
Tell me where you read 3D printing
That is the example they give for similarity.
It does not say 3D printing
What do you think printing there refers to? It obviously is referring to 3D printing. Since you are printing a 3D model.
That's an interpretation. You could be printing its 2D version too.