I have recently started playing dungeons again. I am curious because I also have it on steam. I dont recall buying it on steam also. Though that is possible.
If i buy it on the official launcher is there a way to get it for free on steam? Or vice versa?
Cause if not im probably just going to get it on steam.
^(Desclaimer: This is not an active case at all. Im just super curious due to all the compnents involved how this would go down.)
An Artist made a custom artwork and poster for the new Michael movie. The image features The Glove which is a well known symbol of Michael Jackon. They posted the image online for fun. They made this from scratch with no reference material other than they know what MJ's glove looks like. Theybare just doing this for a hobby.
Along comes the Vaseline company who takes this image without permission and modifies it in a way that is very obviously AI edited and absolutely a modified version of the original image from The Artist.
For the sake of argument.. We are assuming that the image was created without AI and Vaseline did steal the image.
- The Artist
I dont know what methods were used in the creation of this "Glove Poster". but for the sake of argument lets assume the Glove Poster has been created without the use of AI. The Artist is doing this for fun and without any attempt to make money off of this image. The Artwork would be immediately protected upon creation (in the US) in terms of copyright. But that would only fall on the The Glove portion of the artwork. The rest of the poster has a stylized "Micheal" on it and lists the release date of the movie. Which presumably is owned by Lionsgate Films
- The Jackson Estate
The jackson estate is very protective of Micheal Jacksons intelectual property and right to publicity. The glove itself cant be copyrighted. Its a glove. Its a ashion accessory at best and Jackson didnt create gloves or rinestones. Bill Whitten designed the glove but again this isnt something you can copyright or patent. What could be an issue here is the use of a single rhinestone glove like this is inextricably linked to Jackson and if the use of that symbol might be construed as an attempt to gain sales using his "likeness".
- Triumph International INC.
Triumph International INC owns a lot of the merchandising and advertisement rights to a lot of materials. Including many that have used stylized images of the glove in promotional materials. There promotional materials themselves would be protected. The use of the glove for advertising could be stepping on their toes.
- Bill Whitten and Lionsgate Films
I dont think that either of these parties have any claim. Bill made the glove but thats about it. I just thought it relevant to mention him because the glove itself by way of a created product isnt protected. Lionsgate Films is listed because they are producting the movie in which the fake poster was made for. If the poster didnt fall under fair use then they would have a case against The Artist. But since the rest of the art that was stolen was only the Glove portion made by The Artist then they wouldnt have a claim against Vaseline at all.
So who has a claim here? If anyone.
Did vaseline screw up here? Or is their use of the image "transformative" enough to avoid any potential issues with any of the parties involved? Ai is at play here but not in the way its normally at play when it comes to AI copyright issues.
My personal thought is that there are 2 potentials here. Either the glove is enough to invoke Michael Jackson in which The Jackson Estate could go after Vaseline for attempting to make money off of his likeness.... or... the glove isnt enough to invoke Jackson and in which case The Artist has a right to sue due to Vaseline using his protected artwork as a commercial advertisement without permission.
Thoughts?
Edit:
A lot of people are missing the purpose of this. I'm asking about a hypothetical situation. I am asking about a very specific set of conditions that may not be real world for these two images. Such as there are questions as to if the image was in fact stolen by Vaseline or not.. And questions about if the original artist did or did not use AI.
I stated in the post that we are working under the assumption that the artist did Not use Ai and the image was in fact stolen by Vaseline. These things may not be true for a real case brought up about these images. That's fine. I'm curious about the assumed fact version.