The teutonic TWATS!

[Renegade]

If you called it SimWay, and as long as you're not using any copyrighted images/trademarks/etc, they won't say anything.  Someone who made a Subway did have to take it down, but I think their main problem was that it was being charged for.

Birgit is not only making that stuff look pretty identical to Ikea, but using the exact same name.  And if they are are being included in the Ikea Stuff pack, why would I buy it?  I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, but if EA were selling their SP for $20+ and you found you could get the same shit from Birgit for $8, and free from the Booty...EA/Ikea would lose out.

Also, it's not just like Ikea is doing this for "free publicity".  I'm sure they are, but they will certainly get a cut of the profits from these packs.

Will EA/Ikea do anything, maybe not.  And yes, there may be other places which sell Ikea 3D models and whatnot, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a problem.  Ikea and EA have an agreement for this Stuff Pack and may not like the fact that their stuff is being sold for the same game, without their knowledge or permission - and they aren't getting a cut of that.  Also, Habitat43 is trying to claim a copyright on it - it isn't theirs to copyright on more than one level.

I can only HOPE they will do something, but who knows.  If I were a company that had a contract with a game to have my stuff in it, and I had control over what was made, how it was represented, etc, I'd be pretty pissed off if some one else was trying to profit by using my stuff in the same game - especially if they were trying to claim the rights to it.

[chemistrycourtney]

Sherry: They may or may not care about it.  That's true.  Alerting couldn't hurt though. 

Luna: Sorry for the situation you had with your photography.  I'm sure that was very frustrating, and hard to deal with.  It would have made me very angry.  I do see the similarity between the two, although, when it comes to pixels, it can be hard to pin it down.  It does appear to me that some of these Habitat sets are replicas of the originals (at least based on the pictures they use.  God only knows what they actually look like in game.) I think that Sherry's point was that in some of these situations, they could be sneaky and loophole around the obvious copy they have produced.  Say it's similar, or something of that nature.  I think that's what Sherry was getting at.  I don't think she was advocating this as ok.  More, hard to prosecute. 

Like I said before though.  Alerting them couldn't hurt, especially since they are turning a profit on it.

[Sherry]

I am sorry about your situation, but as I reason in my post above, there are situations where it is legal (knockoffs), and reasonable that nothing will be done.  I am not trying to say that it's right or wrong, I have opinions which sway to both sides, (although I am still not going to pay more than $79 for a chair that cost far less to make just because someone "designed" it)  but it is what it is.  Your example was pretty much a direct rip off right down to the media so I think it's much different than what we are dealing with here.  I don't think there is much of a difference in wrong or right when it comes to this issue and paysites or free. EA's copyright definitely, but when it comes to furniture and cloths designers, not so much.   If the company is like Disney arse about their trademarks and copyrights, it has little to do with profit, it will also effect free sites like it has in the past. 

As for Birgit's marking, the matter at hand, whatever, I am sure Pes will find a work around, just like for Rose and TSR, but she even more retard than I thought if she thinks for one minute it will even remotely effect any pirating of her files. 

ETA:  EA is probably worked with Ikea because they are a huge company, and infringing on another large companies trademark or copyright, even if the legalities from difference of media is debatable, well it is probably just better for them to cover their asses.  Birgit's copyright is a complete joke anyway and we all know that, but it hasn't stopped her or others from ever claiming it.  She doesn't make the models, or textures, or SimPe or game contents (EA).  Whether it has Ikea in there or not makes no difference.  She can't claim any piece of it with or without Ikea. 

[Amazone]

Renegade, i totally agree!

chemis, alerting can't hurt, i did a try at least. Thanks for understanding my situation - lol, it was pretty frustrating.
Damm, i am still angry.

Sherry, yes, that is the solution after all, to avoid such situation in the future, paysites shall not win! They try, but i know
they try in vain! We have Pescado!

Omg, i am so tired, i need sleep.

[Druid]

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. 

I'm a history of art major, and I remember learning in my pop class that he was sued for infringing on copyrighted images - I remember it being the guy who designed the Brillo pad box symbol, but when I google it, all I'm getting is that Campbell's did (but eventually decided it was good publicity and let it slide). Just thought I'd throw that in there, even if they WERE andy warhol it wouldn't be ok. Although, it is important to note that he recreated these images by hand - he didn't scan it into his computer (which didn't exist then, not like now at least) and duplicate that way, like they seem to be doing. To back up Sherry's point of knockoffs, i read about a certain band (can't remember which one now) in my local newspaper that was suing the makers of Guitar Hero because the knock-off cover of their song (the rights to have someone else sing it had been obtained and everything) was "too good" basically. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=622 This article claims other singers have won in 'similar' cases: http://www.newsoxy.com/tech/romantics_sue_activision_over_guitar_hero/article10211.htm

Now I'm not all knowledgeable of the law like some of our other members but I thought this was all interesting information, at least...

[Hecubus]

Copyright of images and trademarks can be hinky... at what point is something in the public domain enough that a brand isn't compromised? For example, the word Kleenex™ is listedn in all the style manuals as only to be used as a brand name, with the trademark symbol. Otherwise, it's 'tissue'. It's crazy - in the US, Kleenex™ has become as common a term for a tissue as "xerox' has for photocopying or 'band-aid' has for a self-adhesive bandage strip.

In fact, all intellectual property issues are hinky - the creator wants to protect his/her creation, but also wants that creation to be in the public eye.  In the US, you have all sorts of cases where two businesses have the same names but do different things or are in different parts of the country; at what point does it not affect business A to share a name with business B? Or for two bands (how many crappy local bands were named Paradox when you were in high school? Yeah, we had three in our area).

And then you get to the whole 'fair use' issue. Disney is a total bitch about its characters even being used for free, no less pay items. Other companies don't care.

It's all terribly pear-shaped, really. I don't think Birgit should be advertising her stuff as "ikea", but I could see her saying "inspired by ikea" and getting away with it.

[glasscigarette]

I don't think Birgit should be advertising her stuff as "ikea", but I could see her saying "inspired by ikea" and getting away with it.

Bingo. If Ikea were upset enough to do something about the issue, the simple wording Birgit employs could make or break her case, at least as far as I understand it.

[kenmtl]

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.

You know what, you're absolutely right. Was Warhol an opportunist, yes.  I'm sure we've all been in a faux Corbusier office, have some faux Stark objets d'arts around the house, a Monet poster maybe, the ubiquitous Vuitton handbag,  my €10 Armani sunglasses. It's all there, and I have no problems with that. Do the creators of the originals have a right to a problem, oh ya. They can deal with it however they see fit. My problem is the pirater claiming copyright protection, because that's just quite frankly ridiculous. It's one thing to do it, it's another to say you own it.

I don't care if it's Ikea or whatever, just drop the pretense of having created it and getting pissed because someone else is pirating your pirate.

[missangelica]

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.

I don't know about whether or not Subway contacted them but I did make a thread about it, said I contacted Subway about it and the textures in the set were quickly changed.

[Dr House]

Philippe Starck ripped off from his designs for almost all their items, that's it i'm totally pissed off. They even label his name on the free sink http://www.habitat43.com/components/com_remository_files/file_image_21/img_21_01.jpg
They chose well as it's probably the more sweet and gentle person on earth and would never do anything against them. I like his designs, specially for home clutter. Even his salt & pepper shakers seem to come from outer space lol.




Fuck'em.

[AW]

I just want to see a twat water mark.....the suspense is killing me.

[Paden]

Are you sure you wanna see a watermark of a twat? Just askin! Hey! Put down that broom! No! Get away! No! Don't smack meeeeeeeeeee! *runs like all hell from a Corona drinking Army Wife* OW! That hurt! Mean!!

[silver]

Watermarks? What a silly idea.

You give your money for the download to your best friend Buffy, who lives in a different household and buys the item for you on her credit card. Buffy posts the item here. She could even post them from a third person's computer (and the person then pleads ignorance)  in another town to really mess things up. Buffy is disgraced! Banned! Oh, the agony!

Problem is, Buffy couldn't care any less. Buffy isn't a Sims fan. Neither is the third person. If the twats ban Buffy or the third person, so what?

This can work for the Silverwinds site, too. Buffy buys on your behalf, raids the site, and gives you the goodies, or submits them.

Please. Waste of time.

And the one thing about the Ikea name is that I would be concerned that Ikea might go totally overboard and ban ALL downloads mentioning Ikea, whether they are pay or not. And I do see items on free sites using Sanrio images, for instance.