Copyright Liability

[Sybixsus]

If I use an application or tool, during development of a game, which I do not own, I would be committing an offence, and no doubt any money I made from the game would be snatched away, as well as a huge fine and possibly even worse. That's a given.

But how far does liability transfer, and who has the burden of proof? For example, if I contract out some work to an artist, who I believe owns all his software, and it later emerges that he was using a pirate copy of Photoshop, am I liable? Equally, if I use a physics DLL or something of that nature and it later emerges that the author used a pirate copy of VS .Net, again, am I liable?

Would I need to prove that I couldn't have known these 3rd parties were using pirated software? Would the copyright holder need to prove that I did know? Or would knowledge of the crime be irrelevant?

I don't have a particular issue. I'm just wondering if this could affect me, and how the heck I would go about proving that all the third parties involved own legal copies of everything they use.

[princec]

If I use an application or tool, during development of a game, which I do not own, I would be committing an offence, and no doubt any money I made from the game would be snatched away, as well as a huge fine and possibly even worse. That's a given.

No, this is not the case.

The civil offense you are committing is a breach of a license agreement. The works produced with the tool are nothing to do with the license agreement and remain undeniably your property, as do all the profits which you may make on the back of it. The fine will not be particularly significant and is likely simply to be the cost of a normal license plus court costs should it ever get that far.

And that being a given, you are liable solely for your business' direct use of tools which it does not own. A contractor is not an employee of your company and if they use illegal software, it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure it is properly licensed and legal.

Cas :)

[Sybixsus]

No, this is not the case.

The civil offense you are committing is a breach of a license agreement. The works produced with the tool are nothing to do with the license agreement and remain undeniably your property, as do all the profits which you may make on the back of it. The fine will not be particularly significant and is likely simply to be the cost of a normal license plus court costs should it ever get that far.

Software piracy for personal profit is a breach of a license agreement? So a budding 3d artist could warez a copy of Maya, get himself a nice little business, and if he gets caught, the only thing he's likely to face is the cost of Maya he should have paid in the first place ( plus court expenses, which would be fairly minimal, I assume if he pleads guilty ) ?

Well I guess it's good news that I don't have to worry about what my third parties are using, but I'm inclined to wonder why people would bother buying software if the penalties are so lenient.

[Tertsi]

I'm inclined to wonder why people would bother buying software if the penalties are so lenient.

Some people have those things called honesty and self-esteem.
Not to mention the warez download sizes and less secure feeling.. ;)

[princec]

Consider why the Recording Industry Ass. of America does not try and sue every single teenager who makes a tape of a mate's new CD. Although they're making some automated attempts with the P2P networks.

Cas :)

[Sybixsus]

Some people have those things called honesty and self-esteem.
Not to mention the warez download sizes and less secure feeling.. ;)


Heh, I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but I really don't see a lot of honesty around these days. I'd like to think that game developers and wannabes would see the value of intellectual property more than most, but judging by the number of people I see who are 14, have no clue where to get started and yet seem to own 3dsMax, Maya and Lightwave ( witch one shud i uze? ) that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for download sizes, well plenty of people downloaded 2 gigs ( or whatever ) for HL2 which they could have bought on a DVD for the same price. I'm guessing if it saves $1,500, they could live with a few hours of downloading.

[Tertsi]

yep, teens aren't too eager to buy anything which they can get for "free" :rolleyes:
but normal adults who work in the software industry might just have the things I mentioned...

[Teq]

If you can't afford the software, use the free alternatives :)

[arcadetown]

Of course how far it goes depends on how big a target you become, how far the other party wishes to pursue it, and how deep your pockets are to defend in court. I recall a story about Disney licensing music for a big movie from a French vendor that purchased the rights from the artist for $1k. At first bet the artist was laughing all the way to bank but later it didn't stop him from claiming the license didn't cover this big a deal. Of couse being a French court guess who ended up getting some big rediculous award even though Disney had done everything on the up & up.

[svero]

Of couse being a French court guess who ended up getting some big rediculous award even though Disney had done everything on the up & up.

Unlike US courts which never ever award big silly compensations for claims by individuals against corporations right? (ahem www.overlawyered.com)

[arcadetown]

(ahem www.overlawyered.com)
Sweet... love the story there about "The jury actually wrote $75,000,000,000 on their verdict form, but the judge decided that this was a confusion over how many zeroes were in a million.)".

Wasn't saying crazy judgements not made here. Just saying since Disney was a foreign corporation that probably had something to do with the award. I see stories all the time here in US and abroad where local versus foreign entity that the foreign entity typically gets the short end of the stick. Getting a crazy award and actually collecting it are two completely different things, particuarly when against a foreign entity.

[svero]

Wasn't saying crazy judgements not made here. Just saying since Disney was a foreign corporation that probably had something to do with the award. I see stories all the time here in US and abroad where local versus foreign entity that the foreign entity typically gets the short end of the stick.

Could be I suppose. Without knowing all the details of the case it would be hard to judge whether the decision was correct or not. Sounds like Disney got screwed a bit, but there may be more to the story.

[mahlzeit]

Something to remember: Copyright law isn't the same everywhere in the world. European authors typically have more rights than US authors, even after they sold their copyrights. Second, European citizens tend to have more power over (big) corporations than US citizens.