Hey,
im making a racing game and i took images from google to make 3D models of cars in blender, is this a legal way? or there is website give free images of cars ?
thanks and sorry for bad english
No it’s not but not just for images’ copirights, cause you can actually filter google results by license so to
get the free to use ones.
The real problem is cars brands’ licenses… and you can’t even imagine how much restrictive and expensive are those licenses for games.
Sometimes even super duper mega studios with AAA titles give up on them.
Lazy Virus is half right. There’s no problem with using images (pretty much any image) as a reference because you are not re-publishing the image itself. Copyright infringement generally involves actual copies.
The resulting model might be a design patent or trademark infringement depending on what you do with it. However, consider the fact that the semi-official Blender benchmark contains a (fully branded) BMW model. AFAIK nobody has received a nasty letter over that, yet.
Rule of thumb, you are at much greater risk using the brand name than the image or shape of a car. The shape of a car (taken from an image or otherwise) is not always protected by copyright or patent, in fact, often it is not. The name is always protected by trademark.
Until making profit with it. Non commercial stuff with sources mentioned tends to be OK (ie. portfolios, studies, research, education…).
Just do your own car designs. Not only will you avoid the licensing fees for the real cars, you’ll also be giving your game a distinct look and sparing lots of time not fussing over whether your car models are true to life.
Depends
just… take the time and research what you are making
Most of the time companies wont mind,
most of the time.
most of the time? Not correct. They could close an eye, but if they don’t like something in your game it’s better if you have a good supply of vaseline.
I’ll explain to you how’s the automotive real world:
Stated that what I’ll tell you regards the company name and the car’s name in absolute, and the design of the car/logo where the design clearly identify uniquely a specific brand or car model,
Licenses are per game and per specific model. You don’t get a full brand’s package of cars license except in some very rare cases.
There are automotive companies that want the full control over look, performances, customization, purposes, classes, how the car will be used in the game etc… before giving you license of use. That’s why for example some cars have many customization options while others a few or none, that’s why you could see the Mr.Bean car with the acceleration of a Koenigsegg One:1 (hyperbole). That’s why you see some cars missing some class in game, for example in “The Crew”. That’s also why you won’t see a Pagani car in a porn game or a Honda car that ask for way more restrictions in the purpose of the game.
Some car brand have sold exclusive license to a specific publisher, for example Porsche with Electronic Arts.
And that’s why all the other publishers use RUF instead of Porsche.
Others have sold licenses to a 3rd party company for a certain number of years that decides who, where, what, why and how cars will be used. Those 3rd party companies use to overprice licenses. An example of that were Ferrari until a couple of years ago. That’s why Ferrari cars were so rare in a game.
GTA, that has fake cars inspired to real cars (with modifications), is one of the example of a AAA title that gave up on use real cars because of licenses.
thanks for answers guys
@lazyvirus but this mostly applies to Trademark only. If you look at GTA V for example, there are plenty of car models that are very similar if not identical to real-world cars. Audi R8 for example. However, since no trademarks are used, Rockstar is not sued or even threatened.
That said, what you said is more true than that. If they don’t like your use, better find the vaseline. Using a car for a reference and even selling the model is probably perfectly legal in the US. However, just because what you are doing is not an infringement doesn’t mean you are safe from being sued. If they think they can bully you with their lawyers, they will. So, the real advice is:
-
Check the actual USPTO, Nolo and actual lawyers for actual legal advice.
-
Before using someone else’s work as a reference, find out how litigious they are so you don’t accidentally poke a hornet’s nest. Some companies (e.g. Monster Cable) are notorious for suing everyone within arm’s reach.
-
Never, ever use anyone’s brand name (trademark) unless you know what you are doing.
Counter-intuitively it is more illegal to use the brand “Audi” on your asset that is loosely inspired by an Audi design, than it is to copy exactly a real Audi car but call it “Generic Sports Car 124” instead. (note: USA only!)
ofcourse you’re free to create imaginary cars of imaginary brands.
Well, the point is you can copy the designs of real cars as long as you don’t mention the brand. If one feels that not being able to mention the brand diminishes the value of doing so, well, that’s sort of the point of trademark law.
You can’t entirely copy the design of a real car mostly because some of the design elements
strictly identify a brand. I.E. the pig nose of BMW for example.
Other design parts could be registrered cause they have a functional value more than just a simple estetical value.
You just can take inspiration from a real car to create a fictional car.
But all regards local laws (IMPORTANT).
For example, and just to have a laugh here’s what happens in China:
Suzhou Eagle Carrie
Could you really believe that this Ferrari/Porsche abortion really exists and
it was presented at the Shangai Autoshow 2015?
It’s not a joke… unfortunately. It’s a serious car model.
I’m not an attorney, so please do not take this as anything but my own conjecture. There seems to be some confusion here.
Yes, China has relatively relaxed copyright laws that permit these sorts of things. If that car were sold in the US, for example, it would certainly violate Porche’s copyright.
Second, a copyright does not have to be registered in order to be valid. The moment that a Porche designer drew up the design for the 911, it’s likeness was copyright - at least under US copyright law, which determined that copyright reservation is upon creation.
Registration of copyright provides extra protections for the copyright holder, including statutory damages that need not prove actual damages, as well as an evidentiary record that Porche designed the 911 before Souzoh designed the Eagle Carie and Porche would not need to prove that the sale of the Souzoh harmed sale of the 911 to be granted damages - if brought before a US court (which isn’t possible due to jurisdiction).
Now, it gets kind of confusing when you start using things like cars in derivative work. Logos and emblems are different, they’re covered under trademark law. Using an emblem a make or a model name falls under endorsement. This is why you see brandless cameras on CSI. But nonetheless, the design of a Nikon D700 is copyright. I don’t think that a film maker has to go back and get permission from the designer of every car, building, furniture, drink ware … and so on … That would just be ridiculous. Yet, all of these things do possess exclusive copyright by virtue that they were created at some point in the recent past.
My best guess is that in this case it would fall under transformative work. The car is being used as a generic prop, or if specific, as character development: it’s not a Porsche for the sake of being a Porsche, but rather it is a symbol of wealth, taste and the kind of person the character is.
Now. On to the use of photographs. In non-commercial setting you can generally photograph the Porsche, you can even include the name plate, branding and that tacky “Porsche” rear light thingie. None of this would violate Porsche’s copyright, because the photographer is essentially documenting the car. Things start to change when you sell the image, and change even more when you use the image in an advertisement. But simply taking the photo and posting it online does not violate Porsche’s copyright. Even printing it in a newspaper, or even [perhaps] a general book about exotic sports cars likely isn’t copyright infringement. There’s a difference between documenting the fact that the 911 exists and what it looks like with commercial usage, like advertising or selling posters at the fair where the image of the car is for it’s own sake.
However, the photographer does not own anything “Porsche” in that image. What he or she does own is the composition. So if you replicate the photograph in 3d you would be in violation. But using the image as a reference does not - but, depending on the use you may be violating the copyright of Porsche. Because the photographer does not own the rights to the Porsche design, the photographer has no grounds to file for copyright violation.
Now. This is where it gets pretty tricky. In general, copyright law makes no distinction between taking a photo, drawing - and by extension, modelling 3d. If I were to take a guess, and I am not 100% sure about this, if the model is being used as a generic sports car and the model is not immediately recognizable as being any particular brand, you probably won’t be in violation - that is, a generic “sports car”. This is kind of what’s going on with the Chinese car mentioned above. Though, in this case it’s very clear that it’s a 911 knock off, even though there are difference, most people would recognize it as a Porsche derivative - and I use Porche here because it’s such a distinct style that any sports car that is remotely Porsche-like would probably be in violation, just because it’d be hard to make something look like a Porsche without BEING a Porsche.
Yet, if you used your Porsche model in a collection of other models in a parking lot with a bunch of other cars each receiving equal screen time and none being of particular interest, you may be OK again - in this case, it’s just a car that HAPPENS to be a Porsche.
Though, if you used this in a racing game where the Porsche model were being showcased in a significant way, you would probably be in violation, and certainly you would be if you used the Porshe name.
OTOH, if you made a sort of lotus/farrari mishmash with hard 80’s Lambo lines with some made up name, it’ll be much easier to say it’s just a generic “sports car”. However, simply mish-mashing alone probably isn’t going to be enough, as every individual element is copyright, not just the whole.
So it’s really not that simple.