Forum Thread
by member
  Posts  
Game on Desura is Not Legal (Forums : Support : Game on Desura is Not Legal) Locked
Thread Options
Sep 9 2013, 7:34pm Anchor

Desura.com

That game borrow assets from other games and has no business being sold let alone attributed to the "developer."

Comments stating the exact amount of fraud are being deleted by the "developer."

Apparently the entire level design is from a game called Continuity and the character graphic is from a browser game called Loved.

That's thus far what I've identified as stolen within the game.

Sep 9 2013, 9:00pm Anchor

Hmm.. Interesting. I think the admins should see this and confirm.

Sep 9 2013, 9:13pm Anchor

Hmm I knew it reminded me of something... I haven't played it myself so can't say though

Sep 9 2013, 10:00pm Anchor

The gameplay looks like a combination of other games, yes, but there's tons of Doom, Half Life, Minecraft, etc. clones out there. Doesn't look like they copy/pasted for that.

The main character is the same in the other game, but we've also been down this road before (STALKER STEELZ FROM DOOM3 AND HALF LIFE TOO IT HAS SAME SOUNDS AND TEXTURES HACKERS THIEFS!). So unless the author of Loved says they stole that character (could of not even been his, could of been a creative commons graphic from what I can tell), there's little to go on.

--

Go play some Quake 2: q2server.fuzzylogicinc.com
It's like Source v0.9, only... better!
Play Paintball for Doom 3!: d3server.fuzzylogicinc.com
Doom 3 Paintball to the Max!

Sep 10 2013, 1:07am Anchor

Stating this game stole assets from other games is really just pointing fingers because the graphics are so simple anyone can redraw them on microsoft paint. and unfortunately, cloning is not stealing, it is not illegal. it's lacking creativity but not illegal
if the developper really did extract the assets from the original games files, then this is stealing, but I doubt this is the case here

Sep 10 2013, 9:42am Anchor
Guiboune wrote:Stating this game stole assets from other games is really just pointing fingers because the graphics are so simple anyone can redraw them on microsoft paint. and unfortunately, cloning is not stealing, it is not illegal. it's lacking creativity but not illegal
if the developper really did extract the assets from the original games files, then this is stealing, but I doubt this is the case here

It's the same exact graphic from Loved so unless they can copy pixel for pixel it was ripped from the game using photoshop.

And there's a difference between pointing fingers and the developer actively deleting any comments pointing out theft with no response.

I understand a few members have been posting inflammatory comments. As always, petulant behaviour will not be tolerated, and I will remove any comments which I consider to be rude and offensive.

Apparently pointing out outright theft is rude and offensive.

Edited by: Cleril

Sep 10 2013, 9:54am Anchor

copying pixel for pixel a 40x40 picture is very easy so it's very likely they did that. actually stealing the sprite would take more time than copying it :P

I'm not saying it's okay what they did, I'm just saying that the art assets are so low resolution that there is near no way of proving they stole it or not. cloning happens all the time in game development and it's not illegal. most of the time, no one can do anything about it and it's better off left alone

Sep 10 2013, 10:10am Anchor

Nope, it's not ok to copy pixel-by-pixel in paint, technique of copying doesn't change anything. And even if you changed something a bit in process of copying, it's called "derivative work" and it still a copyright violation. Btw on the site of the developer (www.cardyak.co.uk), there is one more interesting artifact -- a game called Aurum, blatant clone (with copied assets, levels, etc.) of Midas. According to the site, he sells it in Apple AppStore.

Sep 10 2013, 10:22am Anchor

Resolution doesn't impact copyright laws or theft.

The game simply doesn't belong on a store page whatsoever. It's clearly theft and the developer is actively deleting comments stating the fact that he stole.

Sep 10 2013, 10:56am Anchor

Looks like the game was already delisted. I don't see it in "new games", neither I can't find it in "All". Instead of "Buy" button, there is label "Paradox is an invite only release. If you already own this, add a shortcut to your playlist".

Sep 10 2013, 10:57am Anchor

At least Desura acted pretty quickly.

Question is what happens to people who paid for that mess?

Sep 10 2013, 2:31pm Anchor

Game is a complete theft. It's not "imitating" others, it's flat-out stolen visuals from Loved, and all of the visuals PLUS the exact gameplay AND rest of the visuals of Continuity. Whatever your feelings on "cloning", don't you think it's pretty disgraceful and shameful for someone to call themselves the creator of something that they did NOT make, not credit the original developers, attempt to profit off the work (this was a paid download) and then try to delete evidence? Just because cloning happens a lot hardly means that it's okay or something we should ignore and encourage.

Sep 10 2013, 3:53pm Anchor

^ Exactly why I made this thread.

Hopefulyl someone on Desura can assure us they are the ones acting on the game now and not the developer trying to take whatever money he made and ditch.

And the "owner" of Paradox just went to my games and gave them a 1 rating.

The guy needs a good clipping.

Edited by: Cleril

Sep 11 2013, 12:25am Anchor

glad the game got cleared.
but just to make it sure (again).. copying/cloning/making a game as similar as possible to another is NOT theft, it is NOT illegal because it's not stolen assets. ideas and concepts CANNOT be copyrighted under any circumstances, if you wanted to make a game with the exact same gameplay as skyrim and copy the assets exactly as they are in the original, you have the right to do it as long as you do not take the original assets straight from the source files. if you copy them, it's fine.
that's why there is so many clones on the market.
many people seem to ignore this. copying is not stealing. (in the copyright sense of things)

Edited by: Guiboune

Sep 11 2013, 5:26am Anchor
Guiboune wrote:glad the game got cleared.
but just to make it sure (again).. copying/cloning/making a game as similar as possible to another is NOT theft, it is NOT illegal because it's not stolen assets. ideas and concepts CANNOT be copyrighted under any circumstances, if you wanted to make a game with the exact same gameplay as skyrim and copy the assets exactly as they are in the original, you have the right to do it as long as you do not take the original assets straight from the source files. if you copy them, it's fine.
that's why there is so many clones on the market.
many people seem to ignore this. copying is not stealing. (in the copyright sense of things)

And we've made it clear that he did rip assets straight from those games. We never suggested he copied from the games, we stated he ripped the resources.

He already had another game on the android market which copied another flash game called Midas.

He's a "amateur programmer" and from his lack of ability we can safely assume he has no ability to be capable of copying graphics.

Any bloke can use cut and paste in photoshop to rip graphics from flash games. Pixel graphics are harder to copy than what you're proposing.

ambershee
ambershee Nimbusfish Rawks
Sep 11 2013, 6:27am Anchor
Guiboune wrote:glad the game got cleared.
but just to make it sure (again).. copying/cloning/making a game as similar as possible to another is NOT theft, it is NOT illegal because it's not stolen assets. ideas and concepts CANNOT be copyrighted under any circumstances, if you wanted to make a game with the exact same gameplay as skyrim and copy the assets exactly as they are in the original, you have the right to do it as long as you do not take the original assets straight from the source files. if you copy them, it's fine.
that's why there is so many clones on the market.
many people seem to ignore this. copying is not stealing. (in the copyright sense of things)


This is not correct - exact duplication of a game or it's likeness is still copyright infringement.

Sep 11 2013, 8:34am Anchor

This is a difficult question. According to common legal understanding, a "game idea" cannot be copyrighted, even gameplay elements and gameplay mechanics have no protection at all. When it comes to level design, there are contradicting court rulings out there. A swedish court once ruled a level design does not get legal protection under copyright law, two court rulings from the USA say otherwise. However, every content is automatically protected, this includes assets like 3D models, textures, but also dialogue lines and character names in their respective context. If there is a game out there featuring "Zlonan the Barbarian" as typical Barbarian, and you make a barbarian game yourself naming your hero Zlonan, you might loose in front of the court. If you have differently looking character named "Zlonan the Barbarian" somewhere in a room of your SciFi Point & Click adventure OR a game where a barbarian-styled NPC is named "ZLonan" , you are most likely off the hook.

However, even when it comes to the protected assets, there are some catches:

1. At least European courts often demand that the file of claimed copyright infrigment must be bitwise identical to the original in order to trigger legal actions. Don´t get me wrong: It is of course illegal to take the model from another game, make small changes and include it in your own game. But when it comes to a real legal battle whin the EU, it is likely that the judge will rule "in benefit of doubt". But noone should do and risk that at all!

2. Parody is allowed to do almost everything. If you use no stolen assets as described before, change the char names, dialogue lines e.t.c. to something comedian-styled and also alter the name in the same parodistic way, you can recreate every game 1:1 into a parody. The original copyright holder will try to sue you down, but so far every court ruling was in favor of the freedom of art, in this case parody.

3. Quotation rules & redistributed advertisements: This is tricky. Quotes of famous movie, game and literature one-liners or even dialogues can usually be used as long as you don´t fool anyone into believing it´s your original content. Even parts of a movie theme can be considered as a "quote"!
In "Into the Dark" we had 5 seconds of the McGyver theme upon solving the first mechanical puzzle. THree different lawyers in two different countries checked that for us and gave us a "go", but we still added an ingame characters comment to link the music to the respective origin. In "Into the Ice" the main character and his buddy re-enact by accident a whole scene from a Terminator movie, and this is perfectly legal.

In addition to that, I must tell you to be careful when accusing a game of ripping of another, ESPECIALLY when it comes to assets. Many Unity games share the same models and textures from the asset store, so if you find the same chars or props in many different games it doesn´t mean one developer stole anything. In Into the Dark, we had some weapons licensed from the same source as AAA game, and the journalists in Germany accused us first of using stolen assets. They had to apologize, there was no damage done, but YOU are liable for ALL financial damage you inflict if you falsly accuse a developer of having stolen something.
Keep that in mind!

Sep 11 2013, 9:11am Anchor

All I knew myself was that he stole art from Loved and the art from Loved was owned by the developer and not public domain in any capacity.

Someone mentioned he stole the level design straight from Continuity but I have no personal take on that.

His other game, Aurum, also rips graphics from a game called Midas which is again not for open use. Aurum is apparently still on the android market despite it being illegal but this guy is apparently into shady business practices.

The game in question was not a unity title, just some flash. And nothing graphically was his especially the player character which was from Loved.

At the end of the day the "developer" had no business claiming that game as his own and had no right to sell it for any amount of money.

Sep 11 2013, 9:13am Anchor

The only question is if the main character was stolen or not. It hasn't been answered in this thread. It IS the same character, but that does not mean it was stolen.

So did the guy who made Loved say the main character was stolen?

--

Go play some Quake 2: q2server.fuzzylogicinc.com
It's like Source v0.9, only... better!
Play Paintball for Doom 3!: d3server.fuzzylogicinc.com
Doom 3 Paintball to the Max!

Sep 11 2013, 9:56am Anchor
TheHappyFriar wrote:The only question is if the main character was stolen or not. It hasn't been answered in this thread. It IS the same character, but that does not mean it was stolen.

So did the guy who made Loved say the main character was stolen?


my point exactly.. what makes you so sure the assets were stolen and not copied ?

Sep 11 2013, 10:14am Anchor

Taken a closer look again.
The main char is not the same, the games idea was copied 1:1, but the assets are in both games so simple that you can´t tell if it was copied, re-created or stolen. It´s a very disturbing copycat action, but it´s not illegal.

Sep 11 2013, 10:42am Anchor
Guiboune wrote:
TheHappyFriar wrote:The only question is if the main character was stolen or not. It hasn't been answered in this thread. It IS the same character, but that does not mean it was stolen.

So did the guy who made Loved say the main character was stolen?


my point exactly.. what makes you so sure the assets were stolen and not copied ?


The only time I've seen the character was in Loved so unless we can figure out if someone else made it we have to go with the developer of Loved.

IvanErtlov wrote:Taken a closer look again.
The main char is not the same, the games idea was copied 1:1, but the assets are in both games so simple that you can´t tell if it was copied, re-created or stolen. It´s a very disturbing copycat action, but it´s not illegal.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

Regardless, the game was tossed out so the thread has no other purpose beyond conjecture. The job has been done.

Sep 11 2013, 6:34pm Anchor
Cleril wrote:If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

but it's not the same duck. it might look exactly alike but unless we go deep enough to check the DNA of the duck, we can never be sure.
you see a drawing by whoever, you decide to draw it yourself, it's not stealing. you scan it and print it, it's stealing.
you hear a song, you cover it, it's not stealing. you record yourself playing over it, it's stealing.

Sep 11 2013, 7:58pm Anchor
Guiboune wrote:
Cleril wrote:If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

but it's not the same duck. it might look exactly alike but unless we go deep enough to check the DNA of the duck, we can never be sure.
you see a drawing by whoever, you decide to draw it yourself, it's not stealing. you scan it and print it, it's stealing.
you hear a song, you cover it, it's not stealing. you record yourself playing over it, it's stealing.


It's pretty hard to copy art.

Pixel art is easier but it's easier to just photoshop it from the source which is what the game did.

As mentioned, this "dev" did it before with another flashed game.

Your argument is valid but not in this scenario. The dev was practicing theft again.

He didn't cover the graphic or the style.

He used the graphic.

Which is theft regardless if it's a game or book.

Again, the thread has done it's job to some extent. I don't see the point in conjecture since we're all in agreement as to what theft is and isn't.

TKAzA
TKAzA Community Manager
Sep 11 2013, 8:10pm Anchor

Theft is bad, unless its candy from a baby, they shouldn't have candy! its mine!
Locked

Reply to Thread
click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.