For the first time in asset store

The most amazing Batmobile Dark knight is now available in playstore.
It also includes a driving script with realistic sound

Visit to https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/vehicles/land/batmobile-141023 for full specification.

It also includes a demo game for this asset in the description. Feel free to download the game for free. If you're satisfied with the asset then you can own it for own personal use


https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/bat-mobile-8d96cbc35c7146efae6ef54c9d553749

 

Can I ask how you have the rights to sell something that is someone else's copyright, and if I buy this and put it in my game what protection do you give against being sued for using it? When you submitted the asset you declared you own the rights to everything in the asset so again how did you acquire the rights for this vehicle?

 

I have full rights over this asset. there was no problem to Unity team with this model when it was tested. I worked hard on this 3D model. I noticed that I can not find this type of vehicle anywhere in the store, so i decided to make one. Since i'm just a designer (not a programmer) so i can't make a game, but others can, and maybe some of them really wanted to make a superhero type of game that we can rarely find in any mobile app store such as google play store. So I made this model for everyone.

If someone sues your game then I'll refund. But if you upload this model in other website then I have rights to report because I'm the primary owner. Thank you

 

You can see my other asset https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/vehicles/land/exotic-cars-collection-75318
There are no complains from the customers and the Unity team.

 

Great artwork. There's no question there. Unfortunately, I think the legal ground for this asset is very questionable regardless of how much work you put into it. It looks like the Batmobile and even has the same name. The Asset Store team's approval is not enough to assure you that Warner Bros or some other entity with vested interest isn't going to feel its Intellectual Property rights aren't being violated.

The courts found that the Batmobile is copyrightable (this example case is for an older design but I would think that same holds true the the newer designs):
http://time.com/4046683/batmobile-copyright-protection/

If someone uses this in a commercial game and is sued, being refunded the $35 is the least of their problems.

 

I really appreciate that you care about copyrights. But what if I make anything by myself from scratch? Wouldn't that be my own property? If you're talking particularly about that Name given to it then my model was first rejected by giving the name *Dark knight* because I don't have rights to name a brand. But since it's my own design then it's my property but since this design is copied from blueprints then I can't name it as Dark Knight. So like any other Vehicles in asset store, I can name it whatever I want as long as it doesn't represent a brand.

I already sold my other Vehicles like this, you can to my other assets. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/vehicles/land/exotic-cars-collection-75318

Thank you for your response

 

Batmobile is a registered trademark:

https://trademarks.justia.com/730/70/batmobile-73070690.html

What you're doing is a copyright violation. That you name it that way is one thing, but that Unity sells it, is very questionable. I'm starting to doubt the Asset Store especially since today an asset called Lightsabers appeared on the Asset Store, which is also a registered trademark and there's no license info in the asset.

That your asset is for the first time on the Asset Store is only because almost everyone knows one isn't allowed to sell copyrighted material without license.

 

I kinda feel insecure. I bought a lot of assets in the asset store mainly for the reason to be sure that I can use them in commercial games without copyright issues! There are a lot of sites with free 3d models that I didn't use and rather spend money to be on the safe side. But now I really feel bad about the asset store! It seems unity is fine with that as long as they earn money from the assets but isn't that kinda illegal too? I really feel insecure now about the assets I bought!

 

And this is why I'll never buy anything on the Assets Store...

This and another story I read somewhere where someone had released an asset for free and this someone suddenly changed their mind and decided to withdraw permission for anyone to use it for free, forcing people who were already using it either to pay or to remake their game...

The only assets I use are the ones made by Unity Technologies, if I cannot do otherwise.

 

Great my game is 95 percent assets from the asset store ... Man I don't know which is worse the money or the fact I have to go trough all assets and try to find out if there are any copyright issues...

 

Unity asset store only ensure that you can legally use the work the artist did in your commercial game (Though make sure there isnt any additional license included that overrides Unity).

It does not guarantee the artist haven't broken any copyright which also extends to you if you buy the asset. I would stay away from characters and cars. But generic items like weapons are fine as long as they have changed the name etc. Though a greedy corporation can sue you anyway even if you have changed the name. They might not win but you will need to put out the legal fees etc untl you win in court.

Even big games like PUBG have unlicensed guns so the risk is minimal, but its there

 

In the case of this asset, No. You did not create it from scratch as your asset is based on an existing design made by someone else. Your work is a derivative work and you do not own it even if you used a hundred hours on it. On top of violating copyrights you also violate common trademark laws by using a registered name for your own purposes, in this case for marketing.

It would be different if you just made a generic look-a-like and named it a scifi car but your model looks like a carbon copy of the original, copying original elements, shapes, piece locations etc.

Do note that even if Unity did not reject it, you are personally responsible of it and all possible damages it will cause to others as covered in the asset store agreement. in the case someone uses it and gets sued or getting their project taken down your refund will not be enough as you can be made to pay the legal expenses and the time lost resolving the issue.

 

I reported this asset to Unity. What's really worrying me now is the reply I got from Unity:

Hi,

Thank you for notifying us about this. To follow proper legal procedure, if you are the owner of this product, we ask that you visit our Copyright page and fill out a DMCA Takedown form against this product.

https://unity3d.com/legal/copyright-policy

If you are not the owner of this product, but know who the owner is, we encourage you to message them about this issue and have them fill out the DMCA Takedown form mentioned above.

Kind Regards,
The Asset Store Team

So basically they keep on selling, knowing it's copyrighted. That's also why I replied to this thread in the first place. Asking me to waste my time reporting this to Warner Brothers when everyone knows it's copyrighted is ridiculous.

 

In my opinion its also worrying. So only the owner can report his own asset to be taken down?! Thats not the sense of a report function. Nobody will do that when he/she can earn money... So my feeling about the asset strore sadly is not so wrong at all...

 

This is to prevent people like you and me, to report random assets, just because I don't like them.
Hence form report is for legal owners only.
In fact, you and me in most cases don't know, if asset owner has relevant rights. Person may have agreement, which we don't know about. But yes, we can ask, if feeling concerned. Just as @MikeUpchat did. But we have no legal rights, to take them down, other than report, if abusing for other reasons.

 

I am not a fan of the new Article13 of EU copyright law but Unity is not allowed to look just away in the future or am i wrong?

According to the final draft, Article 13, the section that covers “online content sharing services”, says platforms must use their “best efforts” to remove copyrighted material if they are alerted to pirated uploads.

I will continue to use the asset store but now i will be more cautious i think.

 

I am not convinced that average Joe has legal means, to challenge asset's content legal ownership, other than inform legal owner.

My question would be, who is permitted to alert about 'pirated content'?

 

I realize it can be hard for Unity to really know if something is a derivative work and/or a copyright infringement but I am really surprised this got through. For me, it raised a red flag as soon as I saw it. I have seen Unity reject an asset that should not have been rejected because they thought it was infringing on Nintendo's IP even though, I believe, that was very untrue (LCD Game Creator: https://forum.unity.com/threads/closed-lcd-game-creator.472822/.) I grew up when many companies competed with Nintendo with their own LCD games. In fact, this type of game was not even invented by Nintendo but to see something as obvious as the Batmobile being approved makes me think it just got rubber stamped through.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm betting that there are legal reasons why they can't just act on any report received. A quick search came up with the following article which says that notices can only be sent by either (a) the copyright owner, or (b) a third party that is authorized by the copyright owner to submit notices on their behalf.

https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/dmca-terms-and-conditions/#DMCA_requirements

 

Thats going to change with the new EU directive though. Now the one supplying the service will have to make sure they do not publish anything violating copyrights. My guess is those algorithms etc are going to take down alot of legit content too.

 

It's not about a report, it's about selling obviously copyrighted material. Makes me feel insecure now about every purchase I made on the store.

 

I have reported this to WB and included the link to the asset on the asset store. I don't want the Unity Asset Store becoming a no go zone. Turbosquid flashbacks.........

 

Don't you just call it something else? otherwise the model itself looks okay.

 

No. Vehicle designs are just as much part of the intellectual property as the name is.

https://ccbjournal.com/articles/aut...cting-investment-legend-intellectual-property

 

The author of the asset would have done a lot better if he/she had reinvented the Batmobile and had given it another name. The model could suggest the batmobile without looking like it; people looking at it and talking to each other would say "Hey, doesn't it remind you of something, another car?" and the other "Yes! It reminds me of the Batmobile but it's definitely not the Batmobile."

 

It's not solely about the name. It's about the visual aspect, too.
Even if he named it differently, it won't change the fact that he's using copyrighted material from Warner Bros.

You can protect a design.

 

And the pitchforks are out, who brings the feathers?

 

I just want to say that the OP is a talented 3D Modeller. There's no doubting that. I think he would be better off making unique items to sell on the asset store rather than going down these roads again.

 

Last year I created 20 characters with a Manga styles, and the Unity team refused them because they look like some Manga's famous characters.

 

I'm surprised these assets got through Unity's approval process. Even the car assets are using names and logos of actual car companies. Even on the slim chance that the developer got license to use these names and logos, it's an even slimmer chance that the license is transferable to anyone who buys the asset to use in who knows how many projects. Pretty shocking oversight here.

Unity doesn't need a DMCA to remove content. They remove content by their own initiative all the time for a variety of reasons. If I were the developer I would rework these packs so they are up to scrutiny and not violating copyright.

 

a few things, the bat mobile can be made if it was an inspired version.... I been in this industry since the 90's//also as a professional artist/programmer. just to give some experience and how I know..now i'm no lawyer or claim to be... so I suggest if you are worried about it, contact a lawyer before you put it in your game...I know for 100% fact you can make something like a Ford Mustang.....and other trade marks..but its the name that is.trade marked and the actually model it self, if he used that model which he didn't.

....so you can't call it what Warner bros does or anything else.. So Bat Mobile, needs to go. It should have its own name, he can say inspired by Bat mobile...

.SO, before people bash him, I would be the first to call this out........ He can make this and sell it, but the name, needs to go... that is where the problem lies...also, the model I doubt is 100% copied from the movie or games... He has , his own iterations of it..... The name itself needs to be removed and should of been by Unity that is a violation, and will be if someone adds to there game....... Ford Mustang, I seen people use Dord Nustang... or something completely different...also I been a part of games, where we had to contact, Ford, GM, and other car companies..... So the model is NOT trade marked.. as he modeled it..as an artist... (Disclaimer); I'm not a lawyer, I suggest to contact one, if you are worried. and should anyways, when dealing with trade marks.


People are to fast to attack people for this.. and some times, rightfully so, but guys, know how this is handled before doing so... by looking at the model, it is no where near the model in the game or movie.... its his own iteration.... but the name needs to go, name it something else, and put inspired by.. Bat mobile. problem solved...


PS: Other well known 3d websites sell this as well for years.......So its not an issue..nor should be... Unity is following the copy right laws.. in my experience and opinion. ( I rarely defend Unity on some things that happen but I don't see the problem here.. besides the name.

 

that is, if some one replicas it so the tee.... and iteration don't matter.. racing games do this all the time.. indies and others.. I would be the first to be all over him for this... as the name itself, should be removed... as that is a copy right infringement, but the model is not...unless its 100% copy of the movie or game...if its an iteration.... it is not...( not a lawyer, but I went through this with our company with Ford, GM, etc before.. The name is the most important factor to them.. they can't do anything about an iteration, just like HOLLYWOOD tries all the time, when a 3d model looks like them....They try to sue all the time..... when in fact many don't have try to make it like someone, and it is similiar.... art is subjective as well...so as long as someone is NOT, copying every aspect of such, model that is copy right protect, which we have to as artist take seriously...as I wouldn't want any one stealing my designs.... So, an iteration of a model, does not count.. ( I have not seen his model in detail either, with wireframes, materials and so forth..... but by looking at it, it , is no where as good as the game or movie....
\
So in part some of you are right about the name, but NOT the model....

Regardless as a artist, I would not walk down this road, which is why I have not made a wild west game, to many laws, and possible pissing off people... So just not worth the headache..

The artist looks talented enough, I personally wouldn't have went down this road..

 

car companies actually aren't hard to get, but you will pay a price for them typically, some will give rights to some for a decent fee actually.. for names and logo's but yes, you need to go through the process... and the person buying for sure would need to do the same if they sold commercially, which happens a far amount. But, if someone just uses it..... they can be in big trouble, unless they get permission in writing, with a contract.. I know that is how Ford, GM is. anyways... Unity, should have, not allowed the name at all. and double checked for logo's , and made sure this is only an iteration, of it...not the same one.. You can make a few changes, and that will be considered not the same one.. but the name is the biggest problem.. and or any Logo's so I couldn't agree more. with you.

 

That's just it. It is a complete copy of the batmobile from the Dark Knight trilogy. Below are a couple of reference pictures you can use to compare it to the model he created. Feel free to compare them just like I did before I started posting.

Spoiler: Batmobile Front

Spoiler: Batmobile Back

This is not correct. Below is a direct quote from the article I linked earlier with the bolded part being the relevant section of the quote. Notice that it doesn't say you need to make a complete copy to infringe on a copyright. It says you simply need to have enough be the same that you would deceive an ordinary observer.

Below is a link to the court case that led to that decision. Just search for "deceive". It's the first result.

https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/patent/Egyptian_Goddess.html

Below is a short summary of the way the above court case has altered the way you are able to determine if you are infringing on a design patent. According to the article the "ordinary observer" test is now the sole test for determining infringement.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/23/federal-circuit-decides-egyptian-goddess/id=204/

 

Dear people. If you're not satisfied with my own made model then I will remove it

 

This is Unity's 2nd reply after I replied to their first one to my report:

Hey,

The Publishers of the Asset Store are providers of the asset's license and they agree upon submitting their product that they own all rights and license to sell theses assets. Unity Technologies is not a court system and as such, we are unable to make judgment on content that may be infringing on copyrights. We need proper paperwork to be filed against allegedly infringing works before we can take any action between the two parties and the only appropriate actions would be takedowns compliant with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

We appreciate your understanding.

Kind Regards,
The Asset Store Team

 

You're missing the point. You obviously have talent; you should use it to make your own creations instead of copying already existing stuff.

 

Like APSchmidt said, I think you are very talented. I'd love to see what kind of designs you can come up with on your own.

 

@AbdulRahim_96 ^ this

It's not about us not being satisfied with your work. But you clearly have a misunderstanding of how copyright works. Just because you modeled a batmobile, doesn't make you the owner of it. Yes, you created the model, but the idea and design of it already belongs to someone else and is likely protected. What you did is copyright infringement and can lead you to legal trouble.

Get inspiration from different sources, but don't copy something 1:1.

 

the real deal:

Spoiler: just the facts...

Copyright laws are actually very restrictive, and do not apply to items such as names and titles that may be duplicated coincidentally, or that may be legitimately used in unrelated instances.

From a copyright perspective, there is no reason why two works cannot have the same title. As long as the content of works themselves are not copied or adapted, no infringement has occurred.

This does NOT mean that there is no protection on the name, as it may be covered by other legislation: If the name was a trademark, or if it could be proved that that use of the title misleads or confuses the public, (this is know as ‘passing off’), then there can be issues.

While copyright will apply from the point a work is created, ‘passing off’ is based on the public perception of what the name implies, (i.e. you have a very clear idea of what you expect to be given if you ask for a ‘Coca-Cola’).

For further reading on this subject please see our fact sheet: P-18: Names, titles and copyright


The act of copying or adapting someone else’s work is a restricted act. Any adaptation will be legally regarded as a derived work; so if you simply adapt the work of others, it will still be their work, and they have every right to object you if publish such a work when they have not given you permission to do so. They are also entitled to reclaim any money you make from selling their work.

The only safe option is to create something that is not copied or adapted from the work of others, or seek the permission of the rights owner (you should expect to pay a fee and/or royalties for this).

There is nothing to stop you being inspired by the work of others, but when it comes to your own work, start with a blank sheet and do not try to copy what others have done.

It’s hard to prove copyright infringement
This is not the case, copyright law is principally civil not criminal law. Civil law requires a lower burden of proof, actually making it easier to prove infringement.

In a criminal case, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. However, in a civil case, the plaintiff must simply convince the court or tribunal that their claim is valid, and that on balance of probability it is likely that the defendant is guilty.


fyi.
p-

looking at the actual model, if this went to court, YOU WOULD LOSE.
the plaintiff must simply convince the court or tribunal that their claim is valid.

 

I posted a link earlier in this thread where a copyright case specifically regarding the Batmobile resulted in a judgement indicating the use of any likeness to the Batmobile was indeed a copyright infringment. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that if someone used this asset in their game and Warner Bros became aware of it that they might pursue a course of action against the developer(s).

 

well, I saw that he deprecated, so, mute point?

 

Well, it's a good topic for future asset publishers to read and consider. Sometimes copyright issues are black and white and other times they are gray ("grey" for non-American English speakers .)

But, your post was very important because it explains why weapons such as guns can look similar to name brand guns and still skirt the copyright laws. The same is true for cars that look similar in video games to real ones but simply use fictional names. I think the reason why something like the Batmobile is different is because it's considered "iconic".

I feel bad for him. He obviously has a lot of skill and put a lot of work into it. I hope he doesn't give up and comes back strong with some uniquely made models.

 

I would like to see them. Can you show us these Manga characters?

 

I understood what you meant. But in asset store, there are many vehicles uncopyrighted and people are buying it without any complain. So I tried to do the same.

 

Can you name the ones please which violate copyright? I need to see what I have to throw out before I get sued. Thank you.