Battle Hardened artwork a ripoff?

**Unruler** · 01-23-2013, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Vitality

No offense to anybody but.. who cares lmao. It doesn't affect us in any way... And the artwork for Diablo 3 is badass. Use Diablo, Leah, Cain, Tyrael, Demon Hunter, Barbarian, Wizard... Don't bother me none

When Blizzard stomps on Wulven and squashes it for that, maybe you wouldn't be that careless, ha?

**CodeDomination** · 01-23-2013, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Preybird

I think that depends on whether full rights to the artwork were purchased by Blizzard, or merely a license to the image.

considering blizzard does their art in house they would have full rights to it.

**tman507** · 01-23-2013, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by ipoop245

I'm kinda sure that i have seen Stalwart Battleguard

's artwork somewhere else before :|

Here maybe? http://shadow-era.blogspot.co.uk/201...ors-march.html

Might have come from somewhere else that you are thinking of that I've never seen, but I remember they previewed that art in that link. Also, the artwork of Yari Spearman

appears in the official rulebook, showing us that art as well before the expansion was revealed.

**William Hawk** · 01-23-2013, 05:44 AM

It does not matter if art depicts trademarked character.

If there was Porky Pig on that art, it's insufficient to just buy an art, Warner would still sue you.

I think you meant "it does matter if art depicts trademark character". The second statement you wrote is 100% true, so the whole point is that the character is owned by Blizzard.

I'm kinda sure that i have seen Stalwart Battleguard

's artwork somewhere else before :|

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, I was sure I've seen it before too. Looks like Guild Wars artwork from either the 1st or 2nd game. Couldn't find the image on google on my first couple attempts, but I know I've seen it.

No offense to anybody but.. who cares lmao. It doesn't affect us in any way... And the artwork for Diablo 3 is badass. Use Diablo, Leah, Cain, Tyrael, Demon Hunter, Barbarian, Wizard... Don't bother me none

Wow, I'm sorry but I totally disagree. I've co-owned a business before, and this is just not good business logic. I know what it's like first hand to have designs ripped off by other companies. It DOES AFFECT a lot of us, because a lot of us were drawn to the game by its beautiful ORIGINAL artwork. Yes the art for Diablo is bad-ass, but it is THEIR art. Their designs, their characters. Their rights to it. If that were the way Wulven ran their business it would show a great lack of integrity.

When signing on new artists we typically license their old artwork they have lying around. Besides obviously being cheaper, it's done already so it can instantly be added to a card. When you have 150 new cards it makes sense to save time when you can. Unfortunately I guess the DT haven't played much Diablo 3 to recognize the Monk

Totally understand the whole "buy artwork that's done already so it can go straight to the card". That makes sense, that's good business. However, I find it hard to believe that the Design Team wouldn't instantly recognize it as the monk. Even if none of them played the game (big IF), the Diablo designs have been all over the internet for quite a while now. Now let's say it's actually true, it didn't get caught right away because no one recognized it. I think one of the reasons I had an issue with this from the beginning is that, as an artist and designer myself, I would never sell artwork depicting copyrighted properties from one company to another. See even if no one at Wulven knew it was the Diablo Monk, THE ARTIST WHO PAINTED IT knew it was. And that's just bad business.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's illegal to profit from an existing property that someone else created and owns. If I went around selling original prints of Aeon

, Jasmine

, Amber

, and Majiya

, that I painted myself, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be long before I received a legal notice from Wulven to cut the crap.

Like I said before though, I love the game, love the art, have supported it for a couple of years now, and as a consumer I just want to keep getting the best product. An original product. A product from a company that will continue to have integrity, never cutting corners if it means a lesser product to the players that support them. There are enough B.S. companies out there making B.S. products. I haven't considered Wulven to be one of those companies and I hope I never do. That's all I'm saying.

**shadowwinds** · 01-23-2013, 05:53 AM

I think I should get my friend to come over and get me photoshop teach me how to use it then ill go play children's card games on Motercycles then make art for wulven

**tman507** · 01-23-2013, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by shadowwinds

i think i should get my friend to come over and get me photoshop teach me how to use it then ill go play children's card games on motercycles then make art for wulven

card games on motorcycles!!!!!!!!!

**Unruler** · 01-23-2013, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by William Hawk

I think you meant "it does matter if art depicts trademark character". The second statement you wrote is 100% true, so the whole point is that the character is owned by Blizzard.

I meant "it does not matter if you own an art if it depicts trademarked character owned by another company, the fact that you paid for an art does not allow you to use it anyway".

I've no idea btw if Blizzard trademarked Monk as a character. Because "monk" is very generic term to trademark.

I know that it's a common practice to trademark cartoon characters, but you trademark Duffy Duck, not just a duck.

**William Hawk** · 01-23-2013, 06:01 AM

After seeing tman507's response to the Stalwart Battleguard

issue, I would like to state that I am now 99-100% sure the art didn't come from Guild Wars. The style made me think of other art I've seen from that game, but not that piece.

See, I can admit to being wrong. (I still stand by everything else I wrote, however)

**William Hawk** · 01-23-2013, 06:09 AM

I meant "it does not matter if you own an art if it depicts trademarked character owned by another company, the fact that you paid for an art does not allow you to use it anyway".

I've no idea btw if Blizzard trademarked Monk as a character. Because "monk" is very generic term to trademark.

I know that it's a common practice to trademark cartoon characters, but you trademark Duffy Duck, not just a duck.

Yeah I knew what you meant, I just thought you worded the first part wrong. But in any case I agree with you.

Even if they didn't trademark "Monk" per say, that version of a monk is instantly recognizable as the one created by Blizzard. So they own the right to it. There are an infinite number of ways to draw a monk, even a battle type of a monk, and the artist made no effort to do so. The painting is of the Diablo 3 Monk, period. If nothing else, Blizzard has tons of the concept designs showing they created that specific character. If the case went to court, Blizzard would win.