Yup, agreed.rishnarr said:I don't think fair use comes into play here at all. Fair use is what lets Wikipedia use copyrighted images for informative reasons. This guy is giving away print quality versions of posters that are copies of ones from fallout, so he is damaging Bethesda's ability to sell copies of their artwork. So basically what he is doing is piracy.
He needs to keep his argument on topic. If he's contesting whether or not his site contained infringing content, he needs to keep on that track. If he's simply telling Bethesda they should ask nicely before suing, then he needs to just say that (and probably stay out of court, as this would be an implied agreement that the content was infringing). If he just wants free stuff... well... tough luck.WMDogma said:While it's certainly impressive that Andersen played the law card in a manner almost as impressive as Bethesda's lawyers, what's a little sketchy is how Andersen suggested that Bethesda would've gotten a better response had it sent him some Fallout swag first before siccing its lawyers on him. Making things even more awkward is how Andersen decries Bethesda's method of protecting its trademarks almost within the same breath as stating he understands the reasoning behind sending him a cease and desist in the first place.
Bethesda Softworks is a publisher and not the same as Bethesda Game Studios. I'm quite sure Todd Howard doesn't give a crap.KingsGambit said:Seriously Bethesda? Come on, please stop this nonsense. You're one of very few companies left within the industry to whom fans still generally bear good will. This legal nonsense (which is the only kind of nonsense we ever seem to hear associated with you ("Scrolls" anyone?)) reflects very poorly on you. Infringing copyright and making money off your IP is one thing, hosting some fan-art is not even remotely close.
Grow up, tuck your shirt in and get on with my Skyrim expansion, you will be forgiven.
Sounds like a strawman to me. You can refuse to buy a game without being a pirate, or anything of the sort. That's kind of the entire principle of a boycott.FelixG said:"I want your game but I dont want to give you money for it!"
Sounds like a pirates mentality to me.
Yes, but 'too good' is not grounds for claiming confusion, since it says right on the site 'not affiliated with'.NLS said:Could be any kind of reason behind this, but my guess it's either:
1. Protecting the Fallout IP. If the website and service is "too good", consumers may confuse it with say, an official product by Bethesda.
NLS said:2. Protection of the original artists' work. Let's say the artist working for Bethesda has signed a licensing agreement that the artwork will only be used within the game or for any future printed products by bethesda. What if the work was outsourced to someone not directly working within Bethesda? The problem arises when someone is distributing these artworks outside of their original context in high resolution without giving any sort of credit.