The SCP-173 vs. Untitled 2004 Legal Action Conundrum.

For discussing anything related to the SCP universe, does not need to be related to SCP:Containment Breach.
User avatar
Ninjabuntu
Dr. Bright's Assistant
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:08 pm
Location: ████ ████ City ████ - ███

The SCP-173 vs. Untitled 2004 Legal Action Conundrum.

Postby Ninjabuntu » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:35 pm

Because people are fairly up in arms about my wordyness. Here are two version of what I have been told reguarding Copyright Laws and Ownership of Images.

First the short version:
Spoiler
While Mr. Kato may try to make claim to a 3D model of his artwork, He has no legal standing as long as none of the photos of his sculpture are shown or pressent, and that the 3D model is created as "Inspired by" basis.

He barely has right over the photos taken of his sculpture, and how they are used. But he has enough rights that it could swing in his favor.

On that note; There is a high chance you will win if you create a model and use screen captures or renders of your 3D Model in place of any photos of the real sculpture.
Next the long version:
Spoiler
Mr. Kato who created Untitled 2004 which, as a photo, was later used as the Image of SCP-173, has an issue with his work being used for a commercial product. I can understand this.

So we can't use the photo of his actual sculpture for commercial products. But what about not using the photo featured on the SCP-Wiki or anywhere else on the web for that matter?

Where does Mr. Kato loose his claim to copyright?

Recently I have asked legal advice from a Copyright Law Lawyer. It seems that the Photo, not taken by him, of his artwork is in a legal gray area, but that building a 3D Model of that artwork as inspiration does not even in the slightest allow him to make a claim to the copyright protection.

If Regalis where to remove the photo of SCP-173 from the Document and leave this area blank or better yet, replace it with an ingame screenshot. He could freely sell the game for what ever he wants.

Should Mr. Kato become upset, any Copyright Law Lawyer will fight and win a case stating that since the Original Art in Question was used only as inspiration, and that the Final Model, while very simulate is vastly different because of the nature of the creation process. Mr. Kato lost his right to claim. A Judge would there for have little choice but to rule in the Favor of Regalis or anyone else not using the Sculpture or any photo of the actual object.

Sadly however, Mr. Kato may try to come after who ever tries to copy his work seeing it as a violation of his rights. This often comes to a suspension of sales pending investigation. Many Lawyers will try and Bully a Settlement from the "Offending Party" and if arrangements are made, will be show as proof of theft and then, in some cases the arrangement is withheld and that willingness to settle counted as admission of guilt.

To best defend ones right to make a copy of another art in a different medium then the original, One will likely have to brave the Onslaught of Bully Tactics and a Lose of revenue. Should you, and you likely will, win. Mr Kato will have no choice and open him and what ever Legal team he chooses to employ to a Revenue Recover counter suit. Which is worse and harder to prove and takes a lot longer to get a ruling in any direction.

Honestly it would be better to take one small victory then to add insult to injury.

Ultimately, however, it is up to who ever chooses to use SCP-173 and the Source Image of the sculpture Untitled 2004 how to proceed.
This is all a big legal mess to begin with, but with clever tactical decision making, and taking a few key steps. You can protect yourself from a legal :REDACTED: storm if you are brave and hold your ground.

However there is a small chance that you could be brought up in legal actions, fight and fail. This happens about an estimated 20% to 25% of the time according to my source. So there is a small chance you will lose this argument. But chances are good that you will win.

Just though I tell you all what I found out when I brought my case to a lawyer. He told me that if I proceed with his advice and Mr. Kato sends lawyers, He will defend me free of charge.

He has a 95% Case Success rate just so you all know.

Not sure what I am going to do with this information myself, but it certainly give one something to think about.
From Intake Log for D-7165-68, Male, Caucasian, Age 28:
Dr. ██████ : "Do you know why you are here? Do you know how you came to be here?"
D-7165-68 : "Not really Doc. One moment I was watching the lethal injection pumps drop, the next I was still alive and here."

User avatar
CommanderMark
Senior Staff
Posts: 2548
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: The SCP-173 vs. Untitled 2004 Legal Action Conundrum.

Postby CommanderMark » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:33 pm

Looking into it, the bottom of 173's Foundation article states:

This sculpture and its likeness may not be used for commercial purposes under any circumstances.


Wouldn't "likeness" fall under derivative works, including 3D models or fan art?

Actually if we want to get even more technical, the entire claim itself is invalid because Wikidot is under CC3.0, and you can't just decide to swap out the license with another without getting into contact with Wikidot. I'm not sure what exactly happens to copyrighted files when attempting to place them under two conflicting licenses, but Kato could probably take legal action if he wanted.

Although he probably won't cause he doesn't really seem to care about the Foundation site.

User avatar
Absence
Technician
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: at the foot of your bed.

Re: The SCP-173 vs. Untitled 2004 Legal Action Conundrum.

Postby Absence » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:48 pm

Yeah the whole copyright situation surrounding the usage of 173 is a colossal confusing mess. I'd just guess that if you're doing a major project with 173 in it, such as a lengthy fan-film or somewhat-major horror game like SCPCB, you should play it safe and email Mr. Kato for permission even though you really don't need it. But if you're just doing simple fan-art or a few minute long animation with 173 in it, you're probably in the clear. You should also credit Mr. Kato and link to the Foundation regardless. Every instance of anything SCP was deleted from the Villains wikia because they didn't do that and ran into some legal trouble they didn't bother resolving.

User avatar
Ninjabuntu
Dr. Bright's Assistant
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:08 pm
Location: ████ ████ City ████ - ███

Re: The SCP-173 vs. Untitled 2004 Legal Action Conundrum.

Postby Ninjabuntu » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:10 pm

CommanderPro100 wrote:Wouldn't "likeness" fall under derivative works, including 3D models or fan art?
Spoiler
I asked that very same thing. And unless you did a 360 3D scan of the sculpture and it captured its texture as surface detail and coloration, That would be true.

Building a 3D model based on the sculpture as an inspirational source, even from a photograph as a visual reference inherently makes the model different in construction and shape. Thus the two are not the same and no longer able to be linked under Copyright. Likeness can not truly be protected and is why so many "Knock Off" products can be created after a popular product is created.

General Shape and Coloration, is not enough to protect from being copied.
CommanderPro100 wrote:but Kato could probably take legal action if he wanted.
Spoiler
True as was explained to me. He could in fact attempt to take Legal Action and in some way try and halt use of the Questioned content. All very true.

However, The resulting 3D Model and it's textures if not directly taken from the Original, becomes it's own entity and thus become separate from the original.

He is more likely to get a ruling in his favor from a photograph itself then he would be from a 3D model based on what can be seen in that same photograph.
CommanderPro100 wrote:Although he probably won't cause he doesn't really seem to care about the Foundation site.
Spoiler
The SCP Foundation and it's Wiki are a separate matter as what is featured there is a Photograph of the Sculpture that Kato Owns the rights to. Permission was sought and granted from Kato himself with the condition that the Image was not to be used for commercial purposes. This is a loose claim that is often honored by Copyright Law, but not always.

As was explained to me. Using the Documented Description of SCP-173 requires the user to follow the conditions of the Creative Commons Attributes. As a added measure, Adding Kato to the Creation Attributes as an Inspiration Source, also helps in the case as he will as well gain credit for his part in the contribution.

What happens to the model is it will be added to the Creative Commons Share and Share alike conditions. But that where it should end according to my source.

It's a bit hazy and for sure well into the darker spectrum of the gray scale. But that what it is.

To sum it all up:
Spoiler
Yes Mr. Kato can and may try to halt use of the Model, but unless you also use the photo directly, For instance the in-game Document or what not. there is not much connection from the original Sculpture and the Resulting 3D Model. The Creative Commons License does not mean that you have to go out of your way to make it freely available, but if someone can find a way to take you model and it textures, you can't stop them from using it in their own project.

The key here is that the model can not be a perfect point for point reproduction. nor can it be a photo of the original as Mr. Kato has expressed to the SCP Foundation.

I have another meeting with my source next week to follow up on this. A sort of Double check, but he is sure that his advice is correct as he has taken many cases like this and has won many times.
Absence wrote:Yeah the whole copyright situation surrounding the usage of 173 is a colossal confusing mess. I'd just guess that if you're doing a major project with 173 in it, such as a lengthy fan-film or somewhat-major horror game like SCPCB, you should play it safe and email Mr. Kato for permission even though you really don't need it. But if you're just doing simple fan-art or a few minute long animation with 173 in it, you're probably in the clear. You should also credit Mr. Kato and link to the Foundation regardless. Every instance of anything SCP was deleted from the Villains wikia because they didn't do that and ran into some legal trouble they didn't bother resolving.
Spoiler
Yes, there is a Game project.
It may or may not Involve SCP-173 and thus a 3D model inspired by Mr Kato's Untitled 2004 Sculpture.
If included it would be a minor part of the game but still very much present.
There is a Internal Debate of Even using SCP-173 or not. there is also a debate of making my game commercial or not as well.
It's still far too early to say much more.
The point of this is not to pimp my :REDACTED: but rather give what i have so far learned about SCP-173 and the Source Original.
From Intake Log for D-7165-68, Male, Caucasian, Age 28:
Dr. ██████ : "Do you know why you are here? Do you know how you came to be here?"
D-7165-68 : "Not really Doc. One moment I was watching the lethal injection pumps drop, the next I was still alive and here."


Return to “Foundation Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest