Male Viera as a playable character! show your support

[Senn]

If you crop out their copyright, it becomes copyright infringement.

Is that so? Maybe it's a good thing they left it, then?

[Kelryth]

that copyright line doesn't appear in my screenshots anymore. Maby its the resolution the png is saved at is so high (3200x1800) that we just can't make out the pixels?



for example: (I hope the forums will resize it) direct link under the picture.





https://4eqaxw.bn.files.1drv.com/y4m...-13.png?psid=1

[Kazran]

If you think they should have cropped it, fair enough. Maybe they should have. To me, it's pretty obvious it's a repaint/edit. All I'm saying is it's not uncommon for people to charge for repaint/edits. It doesn't necessarily mean the artist is charging for the character model itself or background.

Its most likely a mod the person has installed (mods are against the rules) mods that most likely replace one of the hairstyles and another that probably replaces the gold saucer bunny ears with Viera ones or maybe one that edits what ever race they are to have the ears. Which most likely were ripped from the Fran model.


and thus the screenshot legitimately has the mark at the bottom because it WAS taken in game

The content exists its just rule breaking content you have to get from a third party(ffxiv textools and their discord)

[MrKimper]

Probably irrelevant but Weddie males also sort of look like what I have expect if they're done, though probably a tad bit less lanky and more to the concept art.

[Sigma-Astra]

You really need to re-read what I said, and go look up copyright law while you're at it.

It's illegal to edit a screenshot of copyrighted works, as it is illegal to draw it, or even write about it.
I don't care who you are, or how long you say you've been working in a field completely irrelevant to law, but it's stupid to make a stink about this particular commission when every single fan art that has been posted is equally as infringing on copyright.

Furthermore, copyright is different from trademarks, so Square Enix doesn't explicitly need to defend screenshots taken from their game or risk losing the copyright. Just in case you thought that was a thing.

Again, SE isn't going to crack down on a small time artist and editor that is making players happy and potentially sparking more interest in the game.

No, I believe that you need to re-read what I wrote since you're clearly not listening to a word I say. I think you might also need to go look how copyright and trademark infringement laws for specifically, and let me bold this for you, specifically for the arts, since they follow their own personalized sets of guidelines when it comes to one artist against another.

No where did I say in any of what I wrote that SE would crack down on them, I said, and here's the big part, I said "if". "If the company feels like being that petty". No where did I ever say that SE actually would, but the option that they could is still on the table. It's left up towards their discretion.

And once again, you are wrong if you think every single piece of fan art is infringing on copyright. It's not. If you were actually knowledgeable about how the copyright system works in the art industry. You would be aware of two things: the Fair Use Act and the Creative Commons License which are two of the main ones in use that most people know about. Now, keep in mind, that these two laws are mostly enforced in the United States. I'm pretty sure other countries enforce or have their own policies. Square Enix has their own which is vaguely made clear within their ToS somewhere for the game, but we'll get towards that point later.

The Fair Use Act is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyright material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement.

There are five factors that are looked over to determine if something aligns with Fair Use and whether or not that can save you from a legal battle against a larger corporation: Purpose and Character of the Use, Nature of the Copyright Work, Amount and Sustainability, Effect Upon Work's Value, and Additional Factors such as the guidelines between plagiarism and actual copyright.

Now, one could think, well, that's what the screenshot edit person is doing no? Yes an no. It's a huge gray area. Yes, said person could be considered allowed under the Fair Use Act to use said screenshot made by SE as part of their edit, but in order to get away with selling it legally, it has to be considered transformative. Transformative would mean, under the Fair Use Act, is a possible justification that use of a copyrighted work may qualify as fair use, i.e., that a certain use of a work does not infringe its holder's copyright due to the public interest in the usage. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although not one factor is dispositive.

The amount and sustainability factor would come into case with this as well. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. Thus, because the entirety of the screenshot was used, it may or may not teeter off the line of becoming fair use as well.

The real factor that we want to argue about is the "Effect Upon Work's Value". The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work. <---- This is the huge gray area and why I said "IF", it is infringement under the Fair Use Act, but like you said, SE would have to find it incredibly detrimental towards their market. Still, just because one company may not treat this like a big deal doesn't mean that every company will follow in their good graces. It's just a good idea to play on the safe side and ire on the side of caution. You just never know. Marvel and Disney hate, absolutely hate people using their stuff that I've just steered clear of going near that road. I outright refuse to touch things that belong to them. A person who worked in a print shop that I knew got sued by Disney because a lady wanted Minnie Mouse on a t-shirt, they somehow found out, and they got off lucky with a warning and a hefty financial charge for damages.

So, in case you were wondering, no it's not illegal to draw fan art either under the Fair Use Act so long as it does not look like a carbon copy of the original work and I even stated that in my prior post which you somehow just neglected to read. If you're making fan art of, for example, Fran and it looks nothing like the original concept arts provided by SE of Fran or of another artist, then you're golden. If you're taking an original piece of art and tracing over the image to look exactly like what they made? You could be in trouble depending on if the original owner finds out and wants you to cease, even more so if you're making a decent profit off of the original work. But, honestly, I would just advise people to not do it anyways. No one likes their hard work being copied and then claimed as original work by another person that didn't put in the amount of time or effort in creating it, it's a really awful feeling.

Next, the Creative Commons License (CC) is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that he or she (that author) has created. You'll find this license used a lot for stock imagery and photos and it's a common license on the very popular website DeviantART.com that a ton of private and individual artists use for fan art. If SE would state explicitly that all screenshots were set under this law, then we'd be golden. Why they don't? I have no idea. It's SE, they do a lot of things that don't always make sense.

Also, in response towards your idea that copyrights are different from trademarks, yes you're right about that, they are different. However, you are wrong if you think that SE doesn't need to defend screenshots taken from the game indefinitely. Sure, they don't have to, but they can if they want to. It strictly follows under their ToS in which we all signed and agreed to. If they want to crack down, by law, they are completely within their jurisdiction to.

Now, we go into Square Enix's own policy for XIV and their materials license.

https://support.eu.square-enix.com/r...la=2&tag=authc

"Final Fantasy XIV ("FFXIV") is comprised of materials including art, text, logos, video, audio, screenshots, images, sounds, music, recordings and the official FFXIV Soundtracks entitled...."

"Conditions and Exclusions

You agree:

• not to use the Materials for any sales or commercial use, meaning you cannot receive license fees or advertising revenue, except as part of the partner programs operated by YouTube.com, Twitch.tv, Ustream.tv, or similar programs. If the operator of a partner program seeks to confirm our policy, please point them to this page as we do not have the resources to respond to all requests.
• not to sell the Materials to third parties as original content;
• not to use the Materials to promote other commercial products;
• not to alter, remove, or conceal any trademark or copyright notices that may be included in the Materials;
to immediately comply with any request by Square Enix to remove any Materials, in Square Enix's sole discretion;
• not to use any Materials in conjunction with any of the following: unapproved Square Enix assets; counterfeit merchandise, pornography, unlicensed Square Enix music available for streaming or download, or links to unlicensed Square Enix music available for streaming or download;"

So, yes, I did check through all of the copyright law pertaining towards the screenshot and fan art. I'd appreciate it if you read what I said this time and maybe actually believe a person that knows what they're talking about because they've been in the business for so long. Thanks.

[Duskane]

Probably irrelevant but Weddie males also sort of look like what I have expect if they're done, though probably a tad bit less lanky and more to the concept art.

fish people would have been great

[MrKimper]

fish people would have been great

The au ra kiiiinda are? ngl I was hoping for raen to be more aquatic.

[Duskane]

The au ra kiiiinda are? ngl I was hoping for raen to be more aquatic.

seems like such a after thought raen living in areas like ruby sea and just so similar to the Gungans in star wars


definitely would want more aquatic qualities for a sea creature like race

[Ssmiley_Bjakkzz]

nah i want to see my female bunnies

[Senn]

nah i want to see my female bunnies

I want to see female viera too of course.