Let's agree to disagree.
.
IF the NFT is part of the game, it is pretty much the same thing
Not really. The NFT has the assets as its main focus. And it generates royalties for its creator.
hundreds of cases
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.
subjective
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.