This often comes to a suspension of sales pending investigation. Kato may try to come after who ever tries to copy his work seeing it as a violation of his rights. 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. 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. He could freely sell the game for what ever he wants. 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. 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. Recently I have asked legal advice from a Copyright Law Lawyer. But what about not using the photo featured on the SCP-Wiki or anywhere else on the web for that matter? So we can't use the photo of his actual sculpture for commercial products. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |