Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

How did a F2002 mod from AC end up in F1 2017?

Recommended Posts

http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/how-did-a-f2002-mod-from-ac-end-up-in-f1-2017.142884/

Instantly debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coffer said:
http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/how-did-a-f2002-mod-from-ac-end-up-in-f1-2017.142884/

Instantly debunked.
Only to be proven true later on in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ho3n3r said:
Coffer said:
http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/how-did-a-f2002-mod-from-ac-end-up-in-f1-2017.142884/

Instantly debunked.
Only to be proven true later on in the thread.
Yep, I stand corrected. My bad. Scummy of them to do that, and I'm not sold on their excuse to simply use it as a "reference" either. I said in another thread that I felt they had too many artists employed relative to the number of actual programmers given their slow rate of fixing and implementing just about anything over the years, but now I'm not even convinced that's the case anymore. Clear-cut case of lazy incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no excuse for this behaviour from Codemasters (or anyone else for that matter).

You want to make a model (F2002) but you are aware of a good quality one already available online. There are two legitimate ways of going about it;

1. You contact the modeller and strike a deal, paying in full for the work involved in creating the model. You then give proper credit. Not a problem for a large company like Codemasters.

2. You decide to create your own car, in order to keep consistent with your other models for your product. The first model may be used as reference only (which is what the turbosquid model is for), but as any modeller will tell you (I am one), that this practice does not result in any similarities in the mesh.

Or of course you just can be a lazy scumbag, and steal the first model without approaching the creator first, don't tell anyone and try and get away without anyone noticing. Cheeky beggars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with uploading your work to a place where everyone can just take it. :/

How many people bought a winrar license?

Unless you force people to pay, they usually don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops... busted!!! In all seriousness though I’m quite ashamed that CM did this and sat back taking the profits for someone else’s work without so much as asking. 
I hope he gets paid compensation and offered a full time job at CM if he desired (although after this I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with uploading your work to a place where everyone can just take it. :/

How many people bought a winrar license?

Unless you force people to pay, they usually don't.
Not at all a fair comparison, WinRar is available for free legally, the model is not.

And no, that's not the problem. The problem still firmly lies with Codemasters for stealing it, no one else. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to burgle you...

Codemasters say they are going to 'compensate' the creator by paying for the Turbosquid model out of "good will"... what a load of BS. Models bought on Turbosquid (with an editorial license, which this has) are not to be used for commercial purposes, ie used in a game. So the fact that Codemasters sees purchasing the model for $160 (of which the creator will get maybe half that) as full compensation is not only laughable, but still does not put them in the right legally.

What annoys me the most about this type of situation (its not alone), is that as independent modellers we pride ourselves in creating our own content and strive to avoid ripping or using others content without permission. And should anyone rip a model from a company such as Codemasters, they are quick to ensure it is removed (quite rightly).

So why is it that companies like Codemasters then get away with stealing from small creators without repercussions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with uploading your work to a place where everyone can just take it. :/

How many people bought a winrar license?

Unless you force people to pay, they usually don't.
Not at all a fair comparison, WinRar is available for free legally, the model is not.

And no, that's not the problem. The problem still firmly lies with Codemasters for stealing it, no one else. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to burgle you...

Codemasters say they are going to 'compensate' the creator by paying for the Turbosquid model out of "good will"... what a load of BS. Models bought on Turbosquid (with an editorial license, which this has) are not to be used for commercial purposes, ie used in a game. So the fact that Codemasters sees purchasing the model for $160 (of which the creator will get maybe half that) as full compensation is not only laughable, but still does not put them in the right legally.

What annoys me the most about this type of situation (its not alone), is that as independent modellers we pride ourselves in creating our own content and strive to avoid ripping or using others content without permission. And should anyone rip a model from a company such as Codemasters, they are quick to ensure it is removed (quite rightly).

So why is it that companies like Codemasters then get away with stealing from small creators without repercussions?
That's not the point. If you leave your door open, you should just expect nobody to come in, because it's not legal? And winrar can be tested free, but you still need a license. The program can still be used however. Doesn't make it legal to use it without having a license.

Not saying it's good, but it's easy. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with uploading your work to a place where everyone can just take it. :/

How many people bought a winrar license?

Unless you force people to pay, they usually don't.
Not at all a fair comparison, WinRar is available for free legally, the model is not.

And no, that's not the problem. The problem still firmly lies with Codemasters for stealing it, no one else. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to burgle you...

Codemasters say they are going to 'compensate' the creator by paying for the Turbosquid model out of "good will"... what a load of BS. Models bought on Turbosquid (with an editorial license, which this has) are not to be used for commercial purposes, ie used in a game. So the fact that Codemasters sees purchasing the model for $160 (of which the creator will get maybe half that) as full compensation is not only laughable, but still does not put them in the right legally.

What annoys me the most about this type of situation (its not alone), is that as independent modellers we pride ourselves in creating our own content and strive to avoid ripping or using others content without permission. And should anyone rip a model from a company such as Codemasters, they are quick to ensure it is removed (quite rightly).

So why is it that companies like Codemasters then get away with stealing from small creators without repercussions?
That's not the point. If you leave your door open, you should just expect nobody to come in, because it's not legal? And winrar can be tested free, but you still need a license. The program can still be used however. Doesn't make it legal to use it without having a license.

Not saying it's good, but it's easy. That's the problem.
Fair point regarding winrar... I don't actually use it (7z for me), so when I checked the website it says nothing about it being a trial.

But yes, by not locking your doors is by no means an invitation to come in, so I'd expect exactly the same behaviour regardless of whether it was locked or not.

Same goes for the model, just because its easy to to rip, does not mean I don't expect people to conduct their business in a professional and legal manner.

I've witnessed many mods been removed once its been proven the content has been stolen, many of these instances have been from the companies themselves. I see no reason why the very same companies shouldn't also have to abide by the same rules.

Anyway, according to a representative on Twitter they are looking into it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only unfortunate thing here from codemasters point of view is that they were found out. If anyone tried anything FOM will be all over it anyways. Sad state of affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fractured you are completely correct, this was not a cool move by CM, but at the end of the day the F2002 and all likeness are the property of Scuderia Ferrari an F1 team, and codemasters is officially licensed by F1,therefore they are licensed to use 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with uploading your work to a place where everyone can just take it. :/

How many people bought a winrar license?

Unless you force people to pay, they usually don't.
 Exactly. And I'm not sure this guy has a leg to stand on, from a legal standpoint. Did he have permission from Ferrari in the first place to use their car, logo, etc? I doubt it. Then there's the issue of creating a mod in the first place. 

 But try to argue that point over on RD and you'll get abused for it and told to "get lost" *chuckle*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean I don't like that people use word CM to basically talk about that one guy who decided to be lazy. It's not easy to know how many of the employees actually know that. It's not like in a test, if you cheat, everyone gets punished. It would nice to get a reply from one of the Codies' employees flying around. It might be a shock for some of them.

Honestly the modder can't do anything as it's a model of an F1 car with a Ferrari livery which licenses the modder doesn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just shows the current state of Codemasters game management.

Not only is the 55€ "worth" game half broken because of the very unstable online mode and the major safety car issues, but they also steal peoples work and do not give credit. As @FRACTURED already said, if someone were to steal a car model from Codemasters then FOM would take action against that person INSTANTLY and he would be so done. This is an unacceptable behavior and pushes a dedicated F1 fan and F1 gaming fan like me much further away from buying any more products from Codemasters. Bugs and online issues are one thing but a official game developer stealing someones work really pisses me off a lot.

What a disgusting shit thing to do.
I want them to give an open statement about this and see how they want to talk their way of this one.
Either give the credit and apologise or take out the F2002 in the next update and i do not care if this will make many players angry. It is the developers own fault for doing such a disgusting thing.

I am getting so tired of this company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really think CM should give this guy a job, he’s clearly a very talented model artist and is passionate about Formula 1 to have made the model in so much detail in the first place. 

I’m sure legally he doesn’t have a leg to stand on sadly, and would be counter-sued the second he tried to take any kind of legal action against CM.  

Even though I don’t agree with CM for doing what they did, they should definitely offer him an in game credit and a job opportunity.
Sadly the truth is that if you put something out there on the web for free then someone will take advantage of that, especially if it breaks copyright laws itself.  I’m sure Codemasters aren’t the only ones to have done something like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, this is why the '02 Ferrari is the only F1 car with the correct details on the car design itself, because it's a stolen mod of AC?!

Ridiculous.

*seriously though i made a thread where i asked why the '02 Ferrari is and has been the only car using the proper leg protection and having the proper diffuser / wing detail on it for 9 straight years and why it's the only car rocking the car model to its fullest in F1 2017, a "officially licenced" F1 game, now it all makes sense.....

http://forums.codemasters.com/discussion/58793/why-has-this-lack-of-attention-to-detail-been-accepted-as-normal-for-over-8-years-now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The race department thread got pretty good. Everyone seems to think there is now a codies employee who joined RD Saturday trying to explain all this away  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RD thread was great :)   but i don't think people should be blaming CM JUST yet. They hired someone to do a job and its on that person. UNLESS CM knew about it before release (i doubt said hired person mentioned it).... Does seem rather amusing that the only car in the game that everyone says is spot on in detail MIGHT be stolen. I say might because, well, legal reasons lol  but after a full read of the RD thread im pretty sure it was. Maybe they should hire SS to do the whole game next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also,, and someone with more legal experience than me could answer this. IF proven true, Does this now make the ferrari F2002 in the game an unofficial car? I mean sure Codemasters has the licence to use these cars which would extend to the people they hire to CREATE them, but if the car wasn't created by the person outsourced to do so instead take from someone who isnt licensed to model the car then surely Ferrari would not allow this. Its like if i was an authorised Red Bull photographer, i cant just jump on Google images, take someone's elses pic of a red bull and and sell it as authorised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand it... that car is the modder's creation and belongs to nobody else but him. As long as he's not making money from it, he can do with it what he wants. It's his, end of story. The licensing issue comes into play if it is used in an official capacity. It was stolen by CM and used in this way. That's not the modder's fault. Even if he had it on a website for download, which he's perfectly within his rights to do as it's his creation, if someone then downloads it and uses it for another purpose without the modder's permission, the onus for anything that follows is on the person who took it. The modder is in the clear no matter what, and is perfectly within his rights to complain/take action against the person or company who has stolen the mod. So yes, this renders the car in game as 'unofficial" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another way to look at it, is if I right now built a car from scratch to look like a Ferrari. Doesn't matter if it's 100% accurate, it wouldn't be a real Ferrari and as such Ferrari couldn't come along, claim it as theirs, and haul it away. So it's the same with the game versions. If it wasn't built under contract from Ferrari or FOM for specific use in F1 2017, then it is not their official car. It belongs to the modder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing wrong with that is this was made with the intention of actually being and representing a Ferrari. Listen, im on the modders side its up to FOM to ask him to take it down, if his slipped thu then so be it. That's what im saying, do codemasters have to now remove it from the game until they design their own officially licensed version?  Imagine how fast they patch would come out if they had too lol. There would be no 1 month waiting like we have been :)  ... This could really open up a can of worms if it's all true. You would also expect FOM to rip thu codemasters because if true it means either they had knowledge of this pre release and chose to ignore it or they didn't do the necessary checks before using this hired persons model. Hey best case is FOM now strip codemasters of the F1 licence and next years game gets developed by a better company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×