RWBY plagiarizing from MMD models(?)

[andrewHayes]

So this blew up last month.

http://pre08.deviantart.net/101c/th/pre/i/2016/007/a/3/notice_anything__rwby_stealing__by_dannapmx-d9n26bt.png

General consensus from the RWBY reddit is that the user was wrong, because "RWBY was modeled in a different modeling program" and "it's anime."

Which is frankly bullshit from my perspective, having studied 3D animation myself and finding a tutorial on how to convert a MMD model to a format compatible with Maya and 3DSMax within seconds of typing the terms into a search engine. I can perfectly envision Monty doing this as part of his efficient work philosophy. People have compared Adam and Grimmjor a lot (not to mention everybody practically saying RWBY looked like it was a MMD animation) so I find claims that they look nothing alike bullshit as well.

At the very least, that incident reflects very poorly on the RWBY fanbase in my opinion in how its members subsequently treated the uploader. What I want to know is your thoughts, however.

-What is the legality of using parts from MMD models for *profit*? The former is allowed, but "for profit" has never been clarified.

-Which parts are from Poser and which are from MMD?

-What of the fan models cited?

-Could this be claimed as "transformative" work?

-Did RT get the necessary copyrights? Is this legally grey, outright wrong, or was everything checked out?

-What did the uploader get wrong, and what did the fanbase get wrong?

-Put your own question here

 

[hiei82]

Whelp; that's the first I've heard of this, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as I avoid Reddit whenever possible. Regardless; sure I'll take a look.

Disclaimers: I don't know Japanese so I don't know what's being said. I also don't know the first thing about modeling software. Finally, I am a RWBY fan so my opinion is probably biased in favor of RWBY. I don't view any of these as an issue because 1) I'm not going to comment on the Japanese words; only the images, 2) my arguments are going to come from an artistic standpoint over a modeling software one, and 3) the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" indicates I should be biased in favor of RWBY.

Okay. Good? Let's begin...

First, I'm dividing the evidence into 5 parts based on the image for ease of discussion. They are...
1) Facial Structure at the top of the image
2) Yang's Boots
3) Velvet
4) Japanese Text
5) Weiss/Adam

1) Looking at the listed facial structural components, I don't think this provides any meaningful evidence. There are similarities present, but the images used are all basic elements of the "anime" style. I don't see any similar elements that wouldn't have been standard practice in a "How to Draw Anime" book. They eyebrows in particular are almost tropes in and of themselves at this point.

2) Probably the most convincing evidence are the boots. Similar anime styling aside, the boots are very similar but also relatively unique. There may be a case to be made on them. The evidence however does have some weaknesses. The images are sadly pretty low resolution which limits their use for comparison. There are also a few differences. The top of Yang's boots appear to be slimmer compared to the other character (who I don't know; sorry) and the bottom "buckle" is also smaller on Yang's boots. Further, the lace-line (i.e. the line created by the connecting the end points of each of the laces) is at a different angle on each of the boots. Lastly; they're boots so there's a certain amount of similarity that's inherent in the design (i.e. it will be roughly foot shaped) Still; this might be modifiable in the modeling and I would have no idea.

3) Velvet and the other bunny-girl also show some similarity, but not enough to fall into a plagiarism case imo. Both characters do have bunny ears and long hair. Both have a more formal-school-uniform on. Both seem to be looking in similar directions. None of these however would qualify as evidence as none of them fall outside typical tropes of the anime style.

4) No comment. I cannot read Japanese and so I don't know what's being said so I cannot comment.

5) I'm not exactly sure what the comparison in this final section is supposed to be. It appears to be comparing character poses, but there's no way that argument can hold water. There's a finite number of possible poses that can be made with any software and a finite resolution that the human eye can distinguish (usually the former outnumbers the later for smooth transitions). Further, each of the poses is a pretty standard for anime cinematography. If the comparison is supposed to be the facial structures, than again you run headlong into the "anime-face" problem (see below).

Now, as to your questions, I can only answer from a US law perspective (it might not hold true internationally):

-What is the legality of using parts from MMD models for *profit*? The former is allowed, but "for profit" has never been clarified.

Generally speaking; it is not legal. Any work made is copyrighted the moment its produced and, unless otherwise specified, it cannot be copied without the permission of the rights holder unless it falls under Fair Use (i.e. review, parody, education, etc)

-Which parts are from Poser and which are from MMD?

I suspect the answer is all from Poser. I doubt Roosterteeth would allow the alternative. Further, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Anything beyond that is speculation.

-What of the fan models cited?

I don't think the evidence cited is enough for a case. It's all too circumstantial. It might be enough for the a lawyer on behalf of the owners of the MMD models to petition the court to subpoena RTs files to look for further evidence in the computer code where - if they really did commit a crime - they might find solid evidence.

-Could this be claimed as "transformative" work?

Possibly, but since I don't think so.

-Did RT get the necessary copyrights? Is this legally grey, outright wrong, or was everything checked out?

Like I said above; I don't think Roosterteeth took anything, so I don't think there were any "necessary copyrights" to get.

-What did the uploader get wrong, and what did the fanbase get wrong?

I wasn't aware of the conversation until this post so I cannot comment too much. I don't know the reactions of the fanbase, but if they were as vitriolic as suggested, than that's wrong. I cannot comment on the uploader at all beyond the evidence given and so the only things I can definitively state he "got wrong" was finding a proper format to post the evidence in. It looks pretty clearly to be a an amalgamation produced in MSPaint and is so poorly presented that I'm not surprised few people believe the evidence given. Further, I'd argue that the evidence provided is insufficient for anything meaningful.

 

[andrewHayes]

Whelp; that's the first I've heard of this, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as I avoid Reddit whenever possible. Regardless; sure I'll take a look.

Disclaimers: I don't know Japanese so I don't know what's being said. I also don't know the first thing about modeling software. Finally, I am a RWBY fan so my opinion is probably biased in favor of RWBY. I don't view any of these as an issue because 1) I'm not going to comment on the Japanese words; only the images, 2) my arguments are going to come from an artistic standpoint over a modeling software one, and 3) the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" indicates I should be biased in favor of RWBY.

Okay. Good? Let's begin...

First, I'm dividing the evidence into 5 parts based on the image for ease of discussion. They are...
1) Facial Structure at the top of the image
2) Yang's Boots
3) Velvet
4) Japanese Text
5) Weiss/Adam

1) Looking at the listed facial structural components, I don't think this provides any meaningful evidence. There are similarities present, but the images used are all basic elements of the "anime" style. I don't see any similar elements that wouldn't have been standard practice in a "How to Draw Anime" book. They eyebrows in particular are almost tropes in and of themselves at this point.

2) Probably the most convincing evidence are the boots. Similar anime styling aside, the boots are very similar but also relatively unique. There may be a case to be made on them. The evidence however does have some weaknesses. The images are sadly pretty low resolution which limits their use for comparison. There are also a few differences. The top of Yang's boots appear to be slimmer compared to the other character (who I don't know; sorry) and the bottom "buckle" is also smaller on Yang's boots. Further, the lace-line (i.e. the line created by the connecting the end points of each of the laces) is at a different angle on each of the boots. Lastly; they're boots so there's a certain amount of similarity that's inherent in the design (i.e. it will be roughly foot shaped) Still; this might be modifiable in the modeling and I would have no idea.

3) Velvet and the other bunny-girl also show some similarity, but not enough to fall into a plagiarism case imo. Both characters do have bunny ears and long hair. Both have a more formal-school-uniform on. Both seem to be looking in similar directions. None of these however would qualify as evidence as none of them fall outside typical tropes of the anime style.

4) No comment. I cannot read Japanese and so I don't know what's being said so I cannot comment.

5) I'm not exactly sure what the comparison in this final section is supposed to be. It appears to be comparing character poses, but there's no way that argument can hold water. There's a finite number of possible poses that can be made with any software and a finite resolution that the human eye can distinguish (usually the former outnumbers the later for smooth transitions). Further, each of the poses is a pretty standard for anime cinematography. If the comparison is supposed to be the facial structures, than again you run headlong into the "anime-face" problem (see below).

Now, as to your questions, I can only answer from a US law perspective (it might not hold true internationally):

-What is the legality of using parts from MMD models for *profit*? The former is allowed, but "for profit" has never been clarified.

Generally speaking; it is not legal. Any work made is copyrighted the moment its produced and, unless otherwise specified, it cannot be copied without the permission of the rights holder unless it falls under Fair Use (i.e. review, parody, education, etc)

-Which parts are from Poser and which are from MMD?

I suspect the answer is all from Poser. I doubt Roosterteeth would allow the alternative. Further, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Anything beyond that is speculation.

-What of the fan models cited?

I don't think the evidence cited is enough for a case. It's all too circumstantial. It might be enough for the a lawyer on behalf of the owners of the MMD models to petition the court to subpoena RTs files to look for further evidence in the computer code where - if they really did commit a crime - they might find solid evidence.

-Could this be claimed as "transformative" work?

Possibly, but since I don't think so.

-Did RT get the necessary copyrights? Is this legally grey, outright wrong, or was everything checked out?

Like I said above; I don't think Roosterteeth took anything, so I don't think there were any "necessary copyrights" to get.

-What did the uploader get wrong, and what did the fanbase get wrong?

I wasn't aware of the conversation until this post so I cannot comment too much. I don't know the reactions of the fanbase, but if they were as vitriolic as suggested, than that's wrong. I cannot comment on the uploader at all beyond the evidence given and so the only things I can definitively state he "got wrong" was finding a proper format to post the evidence in. It looks pretty clearly to be a an amalgamation produced in MSPaint and is so poorly presented that I'm not surprised few people believe the evidence given. Further, I'd argue that the evidence provided is insufficient for anything meaningful.

1) People really get 2D and 3D animation mixed up a lot. No, you can't just assume because you can draw a face similarly on a flat piece of paper the same should apply for 3D modeling. The "it's anime" excuse doesn't work when you can potentially copy a sculpted head outright poly for poly in the exact same configuration with a few commands and change a few details here and there to make it "yours." Imagine somebody tracing a picture and changing a few details. Now imagine somebody making a mold of the Statue of David without permission, then molding the haircut so it's different and claiming the resulting statue is his entire work. Much of the statue is now a tracing of the the original artist's work, except in sculpture; that is what the accusation is leveled at (except with 3D modeling you can take a perfect copy of the original and shift around details, and potentially mash together elements from different models to Frankenstein your own "OC"), and the "anime" style justification is BS because there are many styles, not just one. That also goes for textures, you can't just magically paint a texture that's exactly the same as another person's without knowing what you're doing. Just because a model is cel-shaded and looks like a drawing doesn't mean that it is. It should be judged as a 3D model, aka what it is.

I've seen the argument that the boots are completely different based on how they're posed, but I find that stupid and a shallow excuse at best considering there is something called "perspective" in art, which applies all the more to 3D models. Thinner can be explained by simply squashing and stretching the original with a control in Maya to a slight degree (see any tutorial in Maya), which is still taking the original and modifying it to a not-very-transformative degree. Imagine cutting something out in Photoshop and transforming it in 2D. Yeah. Adding ribbons is also a dA tracing cliche; trust me, I've been on the site long enough.

Much of the issue stems from people not understanding how 3D animation fundamentally works, I feel, and somehow thinking the RT animators have been drawing everything frame by frames with these models.

To your credit we don't have wireframe comparison yet, but if the wireframes are the exact same save for the modifications, that would be damning evidence and seal the case.

3) I've seen this pop up a lot (I remember one guy said Velvet's hairstyle was a Poser default asset) Unfortunately, I can't say I've used Poser myself. Still, this is extremely suspicious; Poser was aimed towards previz and hobbyists, and I'm not sure if they would suddenly have anime-style haircuts as part of their default library.

Poser does make good business selling assets a la Unity Store, but then again, that brings up the question of whether the assets sold were unlicensed MMD ones.

4) Not Japanese. Chinese.

I'm pretty sure if the Chinese net community found a pattern among users (considering, um, what the stereotype is) that would be due cause to be suspicious.

5) See 1). Not 2D, 3D, where the wireframes outlining the polys can be tracked and contain their exact position and alignment, making it trivially easy to determine plagiarism. Problem comes from no wireframe comparison though.

Also your Nadia/Shinji comparison doesn't hold up, since Yoshiyuki Sadamoto was the character designer for both Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Of course he would draw in the same style he's used to (he even jokes about recycling elements of Nadia's design into Shinji's), but it would be ludicrous to say Akira Toriyama could appropriate his designs and trace his art style because it's "anime." Again, we're talking about Monty *modifying* *another* artist's design potentially without permission.

...OK, I wrote a lot.

Yeah, people need to learn 3D animation.

-----

I'm pushing for Monty modifying MMD models because I feel this is the most reasonable explanation (it fits with Monty's efficient design philosophy, Monty previously used ripped/modified models for Haloid and Dead Fantasy and did it as his job for Red Vs Blue (BTW, Red Vs Blue also used Maya even while Monty was on board), Monty also carried over the use of mocap and Poser from Red Vs Blue, not to mention a lot of the production, Monty was planning a Hatsune Miku MUGEN character set before he died, it explains the art style inconsistencies in RWBY like Scarlet and Velvet having different hair highlights). I feel people are so angry because they view this accusation as a way of tarnishing his memory. I don't feel this makes Monty a bad person (I knew about this for several months and never judged his legacy for it), and I doubt he may have considered the legal implications of what he practiced. But the RWBY community needs to own up to this, instead of going into denial. Right now, I would rank them on the same level as the Steven Universe fandom.

 

[hiei82]

The "it's anime" excuse doesn't work when you can potentially copy a sculpted head outright poly for poly in the exact same configuration

1) You are correct; but the evidence provided doesn't show that; it shows visual similarity. If you're trying to make the argument that RT or Poser stole the models, than you need to provide evidence of that; not evidence of visual similarity. Providing only visual similarity means that you're argument can only fight on the ground that "RT stole our visually distinctive style"; to which the counter-evidence is that "the visually distinctive style is that of anime, not MMD and therefore not owned by the MMD creators"

I've seen the argument that the boots are completely different based on how they're posed, but I find that stupid and a shallow excuse at best considering there is something called "perspective" in art, which applies all the more to 3D models

2) First off; the argument wasn't about the pose of the boots; it was about the apparent geometry of the the boots as provided by the evidence linked. The geometry appears different regardless of the pose.

3) Furthermore, referring to arguments as "stupid and shallow" does your own argument a disservice - it tends to come across as "whiny and demeaning" - though I shall assume for continued civil discourse that this was not intended and that you are not. Just trust that I'm well aware of "perspective" and that my commentary wasn't lacking in such awareness. Basically; I'm going to argue under good faith that your a reasonable intelligent person making a claim; please do extend me the same courtesy.

To your credit we don't have wireframe comparison yet, but if the wireframes are the exact same save for the modifications, that would be damning evidence and seal the case.

4) Again, I'm not an expert on 3D modeling (outside that used for engineering design), so I don't fully understand the implications of that. Regardless, You should probably post mathematical data showing the wireframes are the same rather than a visual image of them side by side since the later would not provide evidence for your case.

4) Not Japanese. Chinese.

I'm pretty sure if the Chinese net community found a pattern among users (considering, um, what the stereotype is) that would be due cause to be suspicious.

5) Considering that I still cannot read it, I still don't have the ability to comment on it. It might be 100% damning evidence or it might be a recipe for fried chicken; I cannot read it so I cannot comment on it.

5) See 1). Not 2D, 3D, where the wireframes outlining the polys can be tracked and contain their exact position and alignment, making it trivially easy to determine plagiarism. Problem comes from no wireframe comparison though.

6) See 1) The wireframe evidence might be very useful; but with the evidence provided you cannot effectively make a claim that a model was stolen. You can only make the claim they are visually similar.

Also your Nadia/Shinji comparison doesn't hold up, since Yoshiyuki Sadamoto was the character designer for both Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water and Neon Genesis Evangelion.

7) Yes it does because a) you haven't provided evidence of model copying, you've provided evidence of visual similarity, b) because there's such a thing as "self-plagiarism" so Yoshiyuki Sadamoto could be brought up on charges of it but c) he wasn't because what he "copied" wasn't his own work but the stylistic technique of anime and therefore it wasn't a case of self-plagiarism.

Again, we're talking about Monty *modifying* *another* artist's design potentially without permission.

8) And I'm making the argument that the evidence you've provided is insufficient to support this claim.

Yeah, people need to learn 3D animation.

9) Yeah, people need to learn Intellectual Property Law.

But the RWBY community needs to own up to this, instead of going into denial. Right now, I would rank them on the same level as the Steven Universe fandom.

10) Can you really blame them for not taking unconvincing "evidence" as proof of some illegality?

As it stands, I'm inclined to be biased in favor of the defense (per U.S. Law) until such time that the evidence exceeds reasonable doubt. The evidence provided doesn't even begin to call reasonable doubt into question (except maybe the Chinese as I cannot read it and therefore cannot comment on it)

 

[rcs619]

Is RWBY even really still a thing? All it ever had going for it were the action-sequences, and Monty Oum isn't even alive any more to do them.

Besides that, it just seemed cliched as all hell, the voice acting was about what you'd expect from a smalltime independent web-series, and the animation got pretty dang lazy outside of said action-sequences.

 

[hiei82]

Is RWBY even really still a thing? All it ever had going for it were the action-sequences, and Monty Oum isn't even alive any more to do them.

Besides that, it just seemed cliched as all hell, the voice acting was about what you'd expect from a smalltime independent web-series, and the animation got pretty dang lazy outside of said action-sequences.

It is indeed. They just finished Volume 3 up last month. It certainly appears to still be popular (having gotten a Japanese release and a video game on Steam Greenlight). Now that RvB ended, its one of RTs bigger cash cows.

Also, its improved a lot from Volume 1 in terms of both animation and story.

Edit: I am biased though, so if you don't believe me go watch an episode of Volume 3. It might still not be your thing, but there's no denying its improved and still popular.

 

[spartenX]

Now that RvB ended

I'm pretty sure that RT is still making RvB. they just ended the last season on what could be a possible stopping point as they have for every major multi season story arc.

 

[monkeymangler]

Is RWBY even really still a thing? All it ever had going for it were the action-sequences, and Monty Oum isn't even alive any more to do them.

Besides that, it just seemed cliched as all hell, the voice acting was about what you'd expect from a smalltime independent web-series, and the animation got pretty dang lazy outside of said action-sequences.

Still going. Season 3 was a quagmire until the last couple episodes, but the ending was definitely worth staying for. Feels like the series is actually progressing now.

On that note, I plan on doing the RWBY reviews from here on in unless Izanagi wants to do a Good Cop/Bad Cop on the series with me.

 

[hiei82]

Now that RvB ended

I'm pretty sure that RT is still making RvB. they just ended the last season on what could be a possible stopping point as they have for every major multi season story arc.

Are they? Okay. I just remember seeing the most recent episode (Season 13 finale?) when I was bored and it certainly felt like a series finale. That said, I don't watch the show so I don't really know.

 

[09philj]

Is RWBY even really still a thing? All it ever had going for it were the action-sequences, and Monty Oum isn't even alive any more to do them.

Besides that, it just seemed cliched as all hell, the voice acting was about what you'd expect from a smalltime independent web-series, and the animation got pretty dang lazy outside of said action-sequences.

Oh, it exists and is a disaster area. A fun, funny, and imaginative disaster area that I watch anyway.

 

[andrewHayes]

1) You are correct; but the evidence provided doesn't show that; it shows visual similarity. If you're trying to make the argument that RT or Poser stole the models, than you need to provide evidence of that; not evidence of visual similarity. Providing only visual similarity means that you're argument can only fight on the ground that "RT stole our visually distinctive style"; to which the counter-evidence is that "the visually distinctive style is that of anime, not MMD and therefore not owned by the MMD creators"

OK, I'm not understanding where you're coming from, if this is a legal defense, but I find it highly unlikely and implausible that "visually similar material" could be made meticulously; it's just more efficient to copy and modify it. There are the textures taken as well. And generally when the legalese comes out it signifies to me that the argument is weak.

Am I the only dude who doesn't just regard anime as one style, but rather a general trend with multiple factors you can tailor to your own tastes (not to mention different models made by different independent creators, not just "the MMD guys")? It doesn't get much more blatant than having similar eyeline textures.

2) First off; the argument wasn't about the pose of the boots; it was about the apparent geometry of the the boots as provided by the evidence linked. The geometry appears different regardless of the pose.

Similar anime styling aside, the boots are very similar but also relatively unique. There may be a case to be made on them. The evidence however does have some weaknesses. The images are sadly pretty low resolution which limits their use for comparison. There are also a few differences. The top of Yang's boots appear to be slimmer compared to the other character (who I don't know; sorry) and the bottom "buckle" is also smaller on Yang's boots. Further, the lace-line (i.e. the line created by the connecting the end points of each of the laces) is at a different angle on each of the boots. Lastly; they're boots so there's a certain amount of similarity that's inherent in the design (i.e. it will be roughly foot shaped) Still; this might be modifiable in the modeling and I would have no idea.

Yeah, uh, this was your argument, and I explained how modifications could be possible/how it can be explained off by perspective. Not very strong IMO, considering how all your points relied on things appearing smaller or bent.

3) Furthermore, referring to arguments as "stupid and shallow" does your own argument a disservice - it tends to come across as "whiny and demeaning" - though I shall assume for continued civil discourse that this was not intended and that you are not. Just trust that I'm well aware of "perspective" and that my commentary wasn't lacking in such awareness. Basically; I'm going to argue under good faith that your a reasonable intelligent person making a claim; please do extend me the same courtesy.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to people like http://jefardi.tumblr.com/post/139144510355/notice-anything-rwby-stealing

Yeah, I got emotional there, but I can't stand seeing that sort of stuff. Also, I find the arguments trying to justify the boots weak and I'm going to be upfront about that, not to mention giving my reasons to back up my stance.

6) See 1) The wireframe evidence might be very useful; but with the evidence provided you cannot effectively make a claim that a model was stolen. You can only make the claim they are visually similar.

I should probably reach out to people like Mark Zhang.

But the thing is, people have been able to reproduce the RWBY models to some accuracy by cobbling together different MMD bases and models, before Grimm Eclipse.

...Wait a minute, what does the description say?

Bankai Ichigo - Upper body
Shinji - Lower body
Grimmjow - Hair
Renji - Wilt (The Sword only not the handle)

So Grimmjow was or could have been used for the hair as the image claims, since we have an actual existing example. And other models too.

Which brings up the question of if RT really didn't do the same thing as what the fans did.

7) Yes it does because a) you haven't provided evidence of model copying, you've provided evidence of visual similarity, b) because there's such a thing as "self-plagiarism" so Yoshiyuki Sadamoto could be brought up on charges of it but c) he wasn't because what he "copied" wasn't his own work but the stylistic technique of anime and therefore it wasn't a case of self-plagiarism.

No, because self-plagiarism is mostly a thing in writing, in academia and journalism. Considering how much concept artists recycle their work for a living, I doubt self-plagiarism would be taken seriously.

Also the legalese makes my head hurt. I hate legalese.

Actually, I call bullshit. How could all the animanga Japanese artists have their works individually copyrighted if all their art styles were collectively "the stylistic technique of anime"? I find this defense ignorant of reality.

Also on copying, I just gave you a fan example, proving it is possible and proving one claim right, which gives the image legitimacy.

Oh right, high-res image here:

http://orig15.deviantart.net/2ba3/f/2016/007/7/2/notice_anything__rwby_stealing__by_dannapmx-d9n26bt.png

9) Yeah, people need to learn Intellectual Property Law.

Cheers to that.

10) Can you really blame them for not taking unconvincing "evidence" as proof of some illegality?

Main concern wasn't legality. Main concern was acknowledgment of possibility. I found the arguments that RT would never ever do a thing (I actually find the Grimmjor/Adam similarities/copying to be the strong point in this case) ridiculous, and most defenses being like the link above. And the "it's anime" argument parroted over and over I found to be disrespectful to manga and anime artists.

As it stands, I'm inclined to be biased in favor of the defense (per U.S. Law) until such time that the evidence exceeds reasonable doubt. The evidence provided doesn't even begin to call reasonable doubt into question (except maybe the Chinese as I cannot read it and therefore cannot comment on it)

I'm working on getting that translated (nobody can read Chinese? Well, even me, shame on me) and learning 3D modeling to try and confirm myself. Pretty sure I can take a boot and just move it inside another boot to see if they match up, settle it once and for all.

 

[hiei82]

And generally when the legalese comes out it signifies to me that the argument is weak.

Alas; being an expert in patent law and not an expert in 3D modeling, I must use the tools I have to make the case. Since this argument hinges on a legal question (i.e. Did RoosterTeeth/Monty Oum/Poser violate copyright law?), it's also a valid tool with which to argue. I'll try to limit using legal terms as much as possible for your benefit, though I will occasionally have to use them. In such a case, I will try to define them.

In this case, it's best to use an example. Charles Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities. He held the copyright for it (and his estate may still hold it; I'm not sure with how much copyright has changed over the years). Arguably his most famous line is "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.". This phrase, was his copyright. That means he (and later his estate) can prevent others from using it in other works without permission. However, despite this, he does not have the copyright to "It", "Was", "The", "Best", "Of", "Times", or "Worst" as individual words. Those words are effectively "Public Domain" (not covered by copyright). The same is true with many visual arts. You can copyright your specific arrangement of artistic achievements but the individual "words" cannot be owned. Thus, having a bunny-girl as a character is fine, but having a bunny-girl who looks like Velvet is not (at least without the owner's permission).

The elements shown in the image you linked are all elements that are common to anime. Because the images do not show the specific mathematical geometry of the polygons and rather only the visual representation of the polygons, the evidence cannot be compared on a mathematical level. As such, it can only be compared visually. That being the case, the evidence does not support the argument that the models are the same (i.e. have been stolen).

Taking this in the other direction (and most likely vastly oversimplifying it; sorry), If you wanted to prove that the models are stolen, you could take the MMD model and print out the dimensions of the shapes in question then compare those numbers to the same process for the RWBY models. If the two strings of numbers were identical (or similar enough; IP law is remarkably smart about that) then you could make the case that the models were stolen. If however you just visually showed the two, than it becomes a matter of human interpretation. I suspect the Wireframe evidence would play out much the same.

TL;DR: Visual representations are useful and all, but they don't make very good legal arguments.

Am I the only dude who doesn't just regard anime as one style, but rather a general trend with multiple factors you can tailor to your own tastes

Nope. I do view the anime aesthetic as one large style, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize there isn't an enormous amount of variation under the banner. For instance, I wouldn't say that... say Shin-Chan and Berserk are exactly the same art style. There's tons of variation in anime. But, at the same time, there are common elements that mark a work as "anime" which do see large scale use by the animation industry. That is to say, there's a reason that people ask the question "Is Avatar the Last Airbender an Anime?" (and reasons why some people can argue that it is). I acknowledge anime isn't one monolithic thing, but I also acknowledge that it does have broad similarities in artistic style.

Yeah, uh, this was your argument, and I explained how modifications could be possible/how it can be explained off by perspective. Not very strong IMO, considering how all your points relied on things appearing smaller or bent.

My point is this. You haven't provided numbers for the geometry of the boots. You have provided two sets of images of boots. You say that its easy to modify "Boot Set 1" into "Boot Set 2", but in the absence of proof that this occurred, its also possible that "Boot Set 2" was constructed independently of "Boot Set 1" and the similarities are coincidental. Your provided evidence cannot adequately rule out the later possibility. Thus "Reasonable Doubt" (the idea that while the prosecution's story is possible, it's still possible that the defense's version of events is true and therefore innocence hasn't been disproved.)

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to people like http://jefardi.tumblr.com/post/139144510355/notice-anything-rwby-stealing

Yeah, I got emotional there, but I can't stand seeing that sort of stuff. Also, I find the arguments trying to justify the boots weak and I'm going to be upfront about that, not to mention giving my reasons to back up my stance.

That's fine; but good arguments don't come from emotion (even if convincing ones do). First an argument needs logic to support it. I think you've got some reasonable concerns, but I'm still not convinced its enough to show theft on the part of RT/Poser/Monty.

Arguments (in the classical sense; which is what I've been using) are all about convincing the opposing party that your view point is correct. Emotional arguments can be charismatic, but if they're used to insult the other party, it only strengthens the other party's resolve to keep fighting (because if they later agree with you, then your insulting statements must also have merit and most people don't like to think of themselves as stupid).

All this is to say; don't insult your opponents. It may provide temporary catharsis, but it only makes the fight to convince them more difficult

But the thing is, people have been able to reproduce the RWBY models to some accuracy by cobbling together different MMD bases and models, before Grimm Eclipse... Which brings up the question of if RT really didn't do the same thing as what the fans did.

You've done a fine job of proving it's possible they stole models, but so far you haven't provided proof that RT actually did anything. Example: It's perfectly possible that I'm not hiei82 and just hijacked the account to post inflammatory posts about RWBY models, but that doesn't mean that its actually true. In fact the bulk of the evidence says that I'm actually hiei82 (i.e. these posts use a similar linguistics pattern to previous posts, it came from a normal IP address for the user, there weren't any wrong guesses on the password, etc).

No, because self-plagiarism is mostly a thing in writing, in academia and journalism. Considering how much concept artists recycle their work for a living, I doubt self-plagiarism would be taken seriously.

True, but it can be used in that setting (even if it isn't typically used that way because of its 1) impossibility to prove and 2) lack of citation in artistic works. The argument wasn't really about how he should be brought up on plagiarism charges; it was a demonstration of how similarity in anime are present.

Also the legalese makes my head hurt. I hate legalese.

Sorry. If it makes you feel better, every time you mention some esoteric element if 3D modeling I go cross-eyed.

Actually, I call bullshit. How could all the animanga Japanese artists have their works individually copyrighted if all their art styles were collectively "the stylistic technique of anime"? I find this defense ignorant of reality.

See the Charles Dickens example above. No one owns the copyright for the individual artistic elements, only the assembly of those elements into a unique construct.

Also on copying, I just gave you a fan example, proving it is possible and proving one claim right, which gives the image legitimacy.

You've proved its possible to create an assembly that is visually similar to Adam Taurus using existing model pieces; not that RT did so for their models.

Oh right, high-res image here:

Many thanks.

9) Yeah, people need to learn Intellectual Property Law.

Cheers to that.

Raises drink

10) Can you really blame them for not taking unconvincing "evidence" as proof of some illegality?

Main concern wasn't legality. Main concern was acknowledgment of possibility. I found the arguments that RT would never ever do a thing (I actually find the Grimmjor/Adam similarities/copying to be the strong point in this case) ridiculous, and most defenses being like the link above. And the "it's anime" argument parroted over and over I found to be disrespectful to manga and anime artists.

Ah, but possibility is boring. It's possible the world was created fully formed 5 minutes ago with all of our memories fabricated and everything we've ever known a lie. It's possible, but unprovable and unfalsifiable. If we're going to speculate, I'd rather do it on the stock market; potentially much more profitable.

I don't know 3D modeling or how boxes drawn around similar images "proves" anything besides the ability to use MS Paint. As such, I can accept the possibility that RWBY stole IP to the same extent that I accept its possible that lizard people from space secretly control the world and the only way to stop them is tin-foil hats.

As it stands, I'm inclined to be biased in favor of the defense (per U.S. Law) until such time that the evidence exceeds reasonable doubt. The evidence provided doesn't even begin to call reasonable doubt into question (except maybe the Chinese as I cannot read it and therefore cannot comment on it)

I'm working on getting that translated (nobody can read Chinese? Well, even me, shame on me) and learning 3D modeling to try and confirm myself. Pretty sure I can take a boot and just move it inside another boot to see if they match up, settle it once and for all.[/quote]

Alas, I'm a dirty American who doesn't need to learn another language because English is WINglish (so much for my 4 years of French class).

As for the Boot; I still think you need to make the comparison mathematically rather than visually. Humans will see patterns in chaos where math is without human bias.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Anime is fairly universal in it's design. A lot of characters from different franchises look almost identical, it's the nature of the medium.

 

[Katrina Joyner]

I'm someone who actually uses 3D on a regular basis so I hope I can make some further points here. Most if not all of my points have been made before, but they seem to not be quite comprehended so maybe my point of view can shed some extra light.

I'd like to start by making an obvious disclaimer: I'm not a RWBY fan. I haven't been since episode 2 when I noticed, "Hey wait a minute. I know that model. Wait a minute, I know THAT model too!" When you go through places like sharecg, DAZ 3D and the poser shops as much as I do you get to know things. When you're on a limited budget, and the fact that anime toon style hair is in limited supply, you also get to know intimately where the free objects are. I am definitely biased over here.

Let me start with this one point that everyone seems to be falling back on. Anime is a very broadly used style - of which there are many different branches - that can be easily replicated... using 2D. What I mean is, pick up a pencil and if you're trained in drawing you can replicate an anime character fairly easily. Anime is based on basic shapes, after all.

Try to transfer that to 3D and it's not so simple anymore. You're essentially sculpting from digital clay a model that is configured to imitate an art form that's based on basic shapes. Except you're sculpting a 3D object, not in 2D, so it's not a matter of just drawing out basic shapes, adding eyes modeled off of basic shapes, and calling that a face. It's a ton of work. Playing with mashed potatoes is much easier but still work. Compound that by a thousand. I only morph my characters based off of other characters in Blender and that's a lot of work. (Morphing is when you take a 3D object and change parts, much like the statue of David example above.) I tried to sculpt some hair from scratch once. OMG the work.

Something else about 3D work. It's numbers. Even if you and I sculpt the exact same round face with square eyes, there are going to be numbers that fall differently because - being as it's also an art form - the human mind is going to put it's unique stamp onto the object. This is a well known phenomenon that Disney even covered in a documentary. So let's say you and I sculpt the same character. The chances are a lot higher that the layout of just where in the face you put the eyes is going to be off from where I put my eyes. The two models may even look similar enough an untrained eye wouldn't notice, but the numbers would show differently. So would putting images of our models over each other and tracing to see where the parts landed.

So the bottom line here is 3D is extremely different from 2D, even if the art shapes are meant to LOOK the same because they're nowhere near being the same. They're two different processes, and furthermore the 3D process takes more work, is more exact, and more easily tracked as a result.

RWBY is created in Poser Pro, incidentally, which I have just so I can ***convert clothing models from one character to another***. Yep, the numbers from say an Anime Doll model are so different from the Himeko model that you can't take a shirt made for Himeko and easily put it on the Anime Doll. That matrices have to match. So with Poser, I'm able to use their refitting room to take a shirt object and refit it for the models I need.

So let's consider the MMD models and how *exactly* they match those in RWBY. There are anti-fans out there who have actually taken the RWBY models and traced over the faces with MMD faces. That is the point to the graphic andrewHayes first posted. It's showing hardcore evidence that the RWBY models are based from MMD models by illustrating how key parts on the models are in the EXACT SAME PLACES. (Caps for emphasis.) Furthermore some key parts, like the eyeshade, aren't on models provided by Poser to begin with. But they sure are there for MMD.

Now if you're going to morph or even build from scratch a 3D model based off of the anime style, why would you go to a lot (and I do mean a lot, as in a heap) of trouble to get details down to that tiny detail? The answer is a sane person wouldn't, especially if they're on the kind of timed deadline working for a company like Rooster Teeth would put them under. They just wouldn't have the time. It would also be easier to simply use a material with the key parts painted on - what I'm saying by that is that it's easier to just paint them that way. Which they're not.

There's more evidence that RWBY is not an honest venture, as well. There's the bunny girl: http://40.media.tumblr.com/17d4b9aa08459e9df7976ee03e6dd60f/tumblr_mtse4liR0y1spwholo1_1280.png - Yes, they used different ears but the girl herself? MMD. The biggest telling sign is her hair. It's EXACT. It's not a drawing that someone traced, keep in mind. It's a sculpted model of hair made of digital clay. And it's exact.

There's also, as some antifans have pointed out in their rage, that some of the other hair models in RWBY are models made for MMD by fans of MMD - also examined to be proven as exact. Yet there they are in their newly used RWBY glory.

Now when it comes to White's dress (which I happen to have) and other objects, if you got it off of sharecg the makers only have to look to the right to see if the object is okayed for commercial use. If I have it, then it most likely is because I won't collect anything I can't use in the future. To be honest, in the first season it even looks like they're using my cel toon hair texture - which is okay for commercial use. (And is what made me sit up, take notice, and start studying all the bits.)

However, there are other things that are most likely not okay. For example, most of the MMD fan-made hair objects are *not okay* for commercial use.

I'm pretty sure MMD would not okay the use of objects created for their MMD 3D engine for commercial use by outside parties in other programs from MMD such as, say, Poser Pro off the top of my head. Which brings me to another point I've seen people make: they're claiming that because the show is not made in MMD there's no way it's got stolen content, etc.

This is a weak defense. Swinging back to my statement above about why I use Poser, can you imagine what someone whose an expert at Poser like the RWBY crew can do? There are also other programs whose entire purpose is to model and remodel obj's, which is one format of 3D object. Take Blender for example, which is what I use to build and morph.

The point is that they took content from OTHER places (and apparently people), imported it into Poser, and made them work. Am I saying that what they did wasn't hard work? No. What they did was hard work. However, the wrong here is they're working hard (and making a profit) from OTHER PEOPLE'S hard work under dubious circumstances... and not even saying thank you once in a while. (But then again, to say thank you would be to admit they took the parts, so....) Instead the show is being branded as "original", which as far as I'm concerned it most certainly is not.

Would the Rooster Teeth bosses have vetted for these details, as postulated above? Probably not, to be honest. This thread alone shows how little people understand about the 3D process. I'd be surprised if they would have thought about all of these things above TO vet for them. The entire understanding of the legal implications discussed here and in other places shows how very little people get the issue. You can't base the issue off of an understanding of 2D art. Base it off of an understanding of having someone steal the ornaments off of your lawn and use them to make a stop animation instead, because that's essentially what may have happened. Providing the evidence put out by not just people in China (which was a surprise to me) but people in Japan, America, and England have all put out when they sat up one day, truly looked at the show, and said, "Hey. Wait a minute."

 

[The Lunatic]

As somebody who does 3D modelling professionally.


Any 3D model is made up of vertexes, these are like points, draw a point line between two points, you have an edge, draw a third point, connect them up and you have a triangle. Finally, connect two triangles. And you have a polygon.

All models are made in this way, and as such, can be broken down to their original polygons, which appear in a certain place.


As such, if any 3D models are stolen, they will have the exact same arrangement of polygons. The placement of each vertex. Imagine if you drew an image by drawing a dot on the page. Now, you could copy the overall image, but, could you get the dots in the exact same place, without any discrepancy?

Very unlikely.

As such, if two models that look the same and have vertexes in the same place, it's extremely likely that it's the same model.

 

[Katrina Joyner]

Ah haaa... I should have just took my post to you and got you to translate. You made it so simple. LOL

People aren't objecting to the creators using models, it should be pointed out. They feel its dubious that some of the models have the official okay.

 

[MatParker116]

Ah haaa... I should have just took my post to you and got you to translate. You made it so simple. LOL

People aren't objecting to the creators using models, it should be pointed out. They feel its dubious that some of the models have the official okay.

RWBY actually starts in Maya and the examples in that image mostly come from a game that was originally developed by a fan outside of RT and very early proof of concept trailers. The show until RT was acquired by Fullscreen was apparently made on a tight deadline and a shoestring budget, so it would not surprise me if they used any free to use/easily licencible asset to save both time and money. They apparently rebuilt a large amount of models for the most recent series due to changing software as well.

 

[hiei82]

And here I'd thought this conversation was mercifully dead.

Something else about 3D work. It's numbers.

This is where we agree. They are numbers. My difficulty with the claims being presented isn't so much that it's "stylistic" so much as how the comparison between models is being performed.

So let's consider the MMD models and how *exactly* they match those in RWBY. There are anti-fans out there who have actually taken the RWBY models and traced over the faces with MMD faces.

Okay, so what is "tracing" in this example? Is it a physical act (i.e. a person taking a pencil and some paper) or is this a piece of 3D modeling terminology for some kind of tool.

If the former, than you're building your case on a 2D interpretation of the models and you'll have to provide 2D evidence to support it. If the later, than where did you get the original RoosterTeeth models to perform the analysis because, so far as I can see, those official models are not publicly available, which means that the comparison would not be based on the actual models but the models as displayed in the final product (i.e. the episodes of RWBY).

Last point here, if the analysis was performed by Anti-Fans (as stated), than the analysis is also subject to bias and I would like to see what measures were taken to control for bias when the analysis was performed. Just as I wouldn't trust a Climate Study from an oil company or a River Chemical analysis from a drug manufacturer, if there's a possible bias in those performing the analysis, than there needs to be a level of skepticism about the results until such time that details about how the bias was systematically removed is provided.

That is the point to the graphic andrewHayes first posted. It's showing hardcore evidence that the RWBY models are based from MMD models by illustrating how key parts on the models are in the EXACT SAME PLACES. (Caps for emphasis.) Furthermore some key parts, like the eyeshade, aren't on models provided by Poser to begin with. But they sure are there for MMD.

But that "evidence" isn't comparing the numbers of the underlying model (which you yourself stated above as the important factor), its comparing the visuals of the episodes to those of an MMD. The evidence isn't convincing because the comparison is being performed visually; not numerically.

Now if you're going to morph or even build from scratch a 3D model based off of the anime style, why would you go to a lot (and I do mean a lot, as in a heap) of trouble to get details down to that tiny detail? The answer is a sane person wouldn't, especially if they're on the kind of timed deadline working for a company like Rooster Teeth would put them under. They just wouldn't have the time. It would also be easier to simply use a material with the key parts painted on - what I'm saying by that is that it's easier to just paint them that way. Which they're not.

This supports that there's a motive to steal the models, but does not provide evidence that the models were stolen. I could make a counter example that there's no motive because the risk of stealing art assets could be too great for a (relatively) small company like RoosterTeeth to risk.

There's more evidence that RWBY is not an honest venture, as well. There's the bunny girl: http://40.media.tumblr.com/17d4b9aa08459e9df7976ee03e6dd60f/tumblr_mtse4liR0y1spwholo1_1280.png - Yes, they used different ears but the girl herself? MMD. The biggest telling sign is her hair. It's EXACT. It's not a drawing that someone traced, keep in mind. It's a sculpted model of hair made of digital clay. And it's exact.

Yes they look similar; under what metric are they being compared? It isn't enough for them to look similar; they need to have the same digital geometry or the same underlying code; neither of which the image provides.

There's also, as some antifans have pointed out in their rage, that some of the other hair models in RWBY are models made for MMD by fans of MMD - also examined to be proven as exact. Yet there they are in their newly used RWBY glory.

Same as above; where's the numeric comparison and the list of measures used to control researcher bias?

Now when it comes to White's dress (which I happen to have) and other objects, if you got it off of sharecg the makers only have to look to the right to see if the object is okayed for commercial use. If I have it, then it most likely is because I won't collect anything I can't use in the future. To be honest, in the first season it even looks like they're using my cel toon hair texture - which is okay for commercial use. (And is what made me sit up, take notice, and start studying all the bits.)

However, there are other things that are most likely not okay. For example, most of the MMD fan-made hair objects are *not okay* for commercial use.

I'm pretty sure MMD would not okay the use of objects created for their MMD 3D engine for commercial use by outside parties in other programs from MMD such as, say, Poser Pro off the top of my head.

There's no argument here that its somehow okay if the models were stolen; Theft is never good. The issue is with the evidence itself being inadequate to make the case.

Which brings me to another point I've seen people make: they're claiming that because the show is not made in MMD there's no way it's got stolen content, etc.

This is a weak defense. Swinging back to my statement above about why I use Poser, can you imagine what someone whose an expert at Poser like the RWBY crew can do? There are also other programs whose entire purpose is to model and remodel obj's, which is one format of 3D object. Take Blender for example, which is what I use to build and morph.

The point is that they took content from OTHER places (and apparently people), imported it into Poser, and made them work. Am I saying that what they did wasn't hard work? No. What they did was hard work. However, the wrong here is they're working hard (and making a profit) from OTHER PEOPLE'S hard work under dubious circumstances... and not even saying thank you once in a while. (But then again, to say thank you would be to admit they took the parts, so....) Instead the show is being branded as "original", which as far as I'm concerned it most certainly is not.

Would the Rooster Teeth bosses have vetted for these details, as postulated above? Probably not, to be honest. This thread alone shows how little people understand about the 3D process. I'd be surprised if they would have thought about all of these things above TO vet for them. The entire understanding of the legal implications discussed here and in other places shows how very little people get the issue. You can't base the issue off of an understanding of 2D art. Base it off of an understanding of having someone steal the ornaments off of your lawn and use them to make a stop animation instead, because that's essentially what may have happened. Providing the evidence put out by not just people in China (which was a surprise to me) but people in Japan, America, and England have all put out when they sat up one day, truly looked at the show, and said, "Hey. Wait a minute."

I cannot speak for the RWBY community, but the case here wasn't that the conversion to Poser wasn't possible or that if they were stolen that it's somehow okay; Conversion between programs certainly is possible and stealing is wrong. The case here was that the evidence provided is not sufficient to provide proof of theft beyond reasonable doubt. Without solid evidence, the conversation is just speculation; in which case I have better things to speculate upon.