The teutonic TWATS!

[Azaya]

Anyway, on the issue at hand, am I being too pessimistic to assume that Ikea won't really care all that much?

Probably more realistic than pessimistic. But on the off chance that a corporation will crack down on the offending paysite (Subway did, I believe), it's still worth the effort to inform them when some manipulative twat is turning a profit on their work.

In the same vein, didn't Krispy Kreme come down on HChangeri?

[Hecubus]

They should have. perhaps no one notified Krispy Kreme while Heather's shit was still pay?

[Sherry]

I have sent a big e-email to Ikea already, luckily in my own language,  and i do think they care. Swedish business people are not to joke with. I have told them that EA games has known about these paysites for a long time, but not done anything to stop it. And that a lot of IKEA stuff already is out on the net, before the new package is going to be released. I told them that players have complained about this for many years,  and that people are claiming copyrights over stuff they don't should claim copyright for. I showed them links to habitat43 and all they need. I also asked nicely for an answer.

Isn't it illegal to upload Disney logos on stuff uploaded to the official EA site? Who did complain on that?

I just now need to do something with EA, but i don't know how to get in contact with them in USA. i see hundreds emails around the world.
And to write to them in english, well, hopefully that could actually be possible.


EDIT: On Ikea's own site, they have VERY strict rules from using their photos, stuff, logos without their permission! They will not like this. I am quite sure.
But i don't know what they're going to do, so i just hope they do something! That would be nice. So EA games at least could suffer too.

Mmm, I still don't know, there are more than a few model sites making 3D models of their stuff, most of which are pretty well know, and making far more hefty a profit than Birgit.  Ofcourse none of them say "Ikea" outright though. I am sure somebody has contacted them about it.   

Besides if they do care, I still think it's stupid, and unfortunately if they do care it won't just effect the paysites we all hate.  If thier rules are that strict, Disney strict, they will effect free creators, and free stuff.  Just like it did in TS1, I still remember a free site that had to remove all sorts of nursery items.   If Ikea is concerned with Birgit, they will also be concerned with that lovely free Ikea set on MTS2.

[Ensign EO]

Well, could think of it in terms of fan fiction/art again.  While Rowling may not care about Suzy the Fan drawing pictures of Harry Potter and writing slash fiction 'shipping Remus and Ron and sharing it for free online, she'd probably be more than willing to make a fuss if Suzy the Fan started selling her art and writing.

[falln_angel]

And even if they can't copyright the actual furniture designs, they may not be happy with their catalogue images being used to sell something not endorsed by them.

[EbonyRye]

OK im no brainiac when it comes to all this watermarking stuff, but I do know Trend micro kills the tracking cookies, and wouldnt the fact some like me are in the ice age and have dial up be of some help with these files as my IP changes every time i log off and back on?? ...*Runs her finger round the rim of her rum mug before chucking it down fast* ahhhhhhhhhhhh rum

[kenmtl]

Ya, this is one of my biggest issues with these people. Cashing in on an somebody else's hard earned image, then having the audacity to claim proprietary rights. FUCK OFF! You wanna claim authorship, think of something on your own, figure out how to make it by yourself, then put it out there and see if one other person in this world cares. Ya'll ain't Andy Warhol so enough with charging for the soup cans.

Make it if you want, call it an homage, and share it freely, but it's not your property to sell. It's like a thief calling for justice because he got pick pocketed of money he just stole.

[Hecubus]

Make it if you want, call it an homage, and share it freely, but it's not your property to sell. It's like a thief calling for justice because he got pick pocketed of money he just stole.

Or worse, like these teen twits: http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/05/30

[glasscigarette]

The best quote: "It may be a crime, but it's an easy crime." Sounds like the attitudes of a few paysite owners we know. I'd like to think that those girls' mothers are going to slap the shit out of them, but somehow I assume that they aren't.

[kenmtl]

For me the best part...now they're pissed because of the charges.

At least they're getting accustomed to the camera's which will come in handy later, cause you know they're end up on Jerry Springer before they're 20.

[Amazone]

I don't think they would either.  EA as a big company who makes millions of dollars, yes, I could see Ikea wanting to get something more out of it than free advertisement.  A small sim creator, who doesn't make nearly as much, I doubt Ikea would so much as blink.  I know there are a few companies very uptight about their copyright, especially in instances where it doesn't matter, but I don't think Ikea is.

Besides, Ikea does a good job at copying famous trademark designs, editing them slightly, making them out of crappy materials and then selling them.  There is not much anyone can do though, as knockoffs are perfectly legal, and I would assume that so long as Birgit doesn't call her items Ikea there is not much Ikea can even do.  Herman Miller sued a company making knock off Eames Loungers.  The court basically said the the only think Herman Miller could trademark was the names "Eames", so other companies were allowed to make and sell trademarked designs so long as they called them "Eames Style Loungers" instead of Eames Loungers. 

Well, it's Ikeas own unique, simple but also cool design who have made them so popular together with a price most people can afford.
Up until about 15 years ago, Ikea had a reputation in Sweden for poor-quality goods. That perception no longer exists. I am not an Ikea-hater,
but i can't stay paysites who claim copyright over something they don't own. 

Birigit uses Ikea in at least 2 of her items. But the latest set, a bathroom was called Philippe Starck-x - from a designer in France. Right! Ikea and Starck, the last
bathroom they claimed copyright for was items from Philippe Starck in France.

Bath tube original:


Habitat43:
http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll310/tymnia/Bathroom-Starck-X.jpg

Sink Original:


Habitat43:


They also use his design on the toalets and the Bidet, like i guessed, it could be from France.

Shelf original:


Habitat43:


This was the set they they sent out manually to their members, claiming they had technical problems.
Afther the set of Starck-x own design was in the booty, they tracked the person who shared it, and closed the account.

[Hecubus]

Reflex did that tub a year ago. And sold it, in the Pearl bedroom set. What's the real issue - that they called the stuff Ikea and are charging for it, or because they are fake-copyrighting their stuff, or because you got caught sharing it because we didn't know they used TSR's system?

[Amazone]

I knew i had seen that bath tube before, somewhere.

I wonder what a designer like Philippe Starck would say, that his items are made in a game for EA, by people claiming copyright for his own
design, they certainly haven't asked a designer like him to use for selling them further. Of course they don't expect most people even
know about this guy. They think people are stupid.

[Sherry]

Ya'll ain't Andy Warhol so enough with charging for the soup cans.

Yeah but he did charge, and that is an important point.  His SoupCans weren't free if you wanted to buy one.  Heck Roy Lichtenstein copied other comics pretty much verbatim. 

While Birgit is using Ikea's (among others) designs, she is neither competing with Ikea, nor is she diluting their trademark.  As in the case of Warhol, or SNL doing a Harry Potter skit,  the models could reasonably considered a parody and therefore protected under fair use.  Plus she is not even calling her stuff Ikea as far as I know.  If I made a "subway" looking set and called it "simway" I don't think there is a damn thing subway could do to me, even if I was making money.

I agree Birgit is a twat and all, and she mostly does a disservice to the great designers who designed the objects in the first place.  Also she does a disservice to the 3D model sites she originally pirates those meshes from (again - who sell all those same designs and make much higher profit than Birgit) by not taking the time and care to properly transfer them into something usable and nice looking for the game.  However, I still don't think Ikea has much of a case.   They may contact her and she may just decide to remove it but if she didn't and it came down to push or shove I don't think there is anything Ikea can do.

Again -  Phillipe Starks, like many designers such as the Eames, Corbusier, Jacobsen, all their designs knocked off in the actual real world, in furniture where it actually hurts them (ok some of them are dead now - but still).  Even Ikea does this - to them!  I doubt they really care about any sim furniture.  Heck my diningroom chairs the "Jake" Chairs from Room and Board (a very well know and respected company) and are knockoffs of the Series 7 Chair by Arne Jacobsen.  Neither Jacobsen or Republic of Fritz Hanson who owns the rights get any money from Room and Board and they can't do a damn thing about them selling the obvious copy so long as they don't call it a "Series 7".  Yet they are supposed to be able do something about models or sims .packages?  I don't think so. 

ETA: Stark, personally would not probably care, as he is supposedly "retiring" in two years and apparently regrets designing products that lend toward wasting resources, and I have heard other designs kinda nod he is going off the deep end.

[Amazone]

Sherry, i am not talking about free creators. They do not profit from others work, they get inspiration to create. But it can be quite serious when
someone profit from a designers work. I doubt that is legal. I have been in a similar situation in real life 3 times.

I skip the 2 of them. But i felt very hurt by the latest incident. I had a website with huge photos, very special photos and historical photos.
I did not watermark them, i was simply not thinking of doing that untill later.

One day, around 2 years ago, i went into a store nearby where i live. When i should go out again, i stopped up, looking at a Print on the wall
next to the door. It was an invitation to an exhibition for an artist. He should sell pictures, photos and paintings. The photo i saw, was excatly
the same i had taken.  I did not know what to believe, i thought: maybe the guy took excatly the same pic as i did of the sculpture, same angle, and...
same cutout from the picture?? I went in a circle and studied the photo. I had to go back home to grab my own photo, go back and compare,
There was no doubt, that thief had downloaded my picture from my website, and used it for his own profit to have an exhibition! i saw every single detail.  He used my Photo as a logo on his print. I was furious, but i did not go to police, i simply did never know what to do, even if i told all my friends, who gave me advices. Some times it might be difficult to win cases like that. If it was much money involved, it would be different, but i don't think it was, well, i never knew. Now i see, i should have
made a case out of it. I can't believe i didn't do it when i should do it.

Like i said, i have had similar experience 2 times before. One of them had to pay, not with money, but by beeing humiliated.

I am not blaming free creators, i blame them who profit on other artists, designers work. That is financial theft. And not legal.

BIRGIT is USING IKEA in 2 of her sets! And to me it looks like it's something wrong with the designers, first Ikea, now Starck, do you really defend paysites
profiting on other artists/designers work?