While its the rendition of the title character means, artist drew it based on th
ID: 373010 • Letter: W
Question
While its the rendition of the title character means, artist drew it based on the character of the game earlier. It is thus copyrighted art of Game and allowed under Fair Use Laws. But artist until and unless has created a totally new rendition fan-art, it can be used by the Interplay as it has purchased the game rights along with all the copyrights that came with it. So it need not pay up the artist but as a courtesy they can acknoledge the work used by Interplay in the credits (which hardly people go through).
Acknowledging brings mutual respect between both the parties avoiding any legal situation which results into unproductive work.
Explanation / Answer
No matter what type of company, businesses are known to take measures to lower costs and this is evident throughout the video game industry. In the 1990's there was a semi-popular video game series called Earthworm Jim. The game has struggled, over the years, to relaunch itself and has changed between several different owning companies. In 2010, Interplay released an HD remake of the title; however, in many of the game's menus, they used an impressive fan-art rendition of the title character without attributing or compensating the artist. So, here's the question: What should Interplay do in this situation. The art was unlicensed to begin with; however, Fair Use laws (where you can use an image to parody or create an homage) is still in effect. So, is there someone truly in the wrong here? Should there be some type of compensation or acknowledgement? Discuss your thoughts below and respond to at least one other student.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.