Habbo background = rip!!

[toxic]

Exactly.



Well can you show me where the creator put copyright on the image please?

Oh wait they didnt.

Therefore sulake have the most copyright voer it.

Just shows how much knowledge you have on the point you are trying to argue against.

Under Copyright prevention laws nothing needs to have "Copyrighted by blah blah [date] - [date]" on it to be Copyrighted or have to go through any legal procedure to be Copyrighted, the right to copy is to the person(s) who originally created it. People usually put "Copyrighted" to strengthen it but it is not legally needed.

That is different from a patent or a trademark btw, which i'm sure would need it.

[Hazza]

They've changed the image, made it smaller, made different windows, therefore its not as rip.

[TopManTim]

What so if i wrote habbo on someone sulake would own them? :rolleyes:

no seen as a person isn't an alt....

No being funny but who cares? if anything be pleased that Habbo think your work is good enough to use.
You never know they might try to employ the origanaly.

[AgnesIO]

No being funny but who cares? if anything be pleased that Habbo think your work is good enough to use.
You never know they might try to employ the origanaly.

Exactly.

[e5]

Look entirely different to me.

[Kyle]

Since they have changed it alot, it is technically theirs. So you're saying if you made a habbo alt of a house, then habbo released a background with a house in, they have stolen your work?

REINOUT--D could have given them permissions to "use" his alt for all you know, and even if he didn't... They didn't give him permission to put habbos in his alt. They haven't told him to remove the habbos, and reinout hasnt asked them to remove their slightly similar building, therefore it does not matter.

[alv4]

Are similar..
but nothing...

[Black_Apalachi]

I remember a while back, there was something like this about a horse or donkey or something that Roboevil made. (Lol at him being held at gun point in the image ).

Sorry.

I seem to be able to see habbo's on the picture.

If HABBO's are on the picture, HABBO have copyright over it.

I've often wondered about that. What if you open up MS Paint, and start creating an image completely 100% from sctatch (i.e.: nothing is copied & pasted, you just draw), then you end up with what looks like a "Habbo Alteration".

Firstly, it wouldn't be an "alteration" as nothing's been alterted if you've just created something, but my main point is, who says what a "Habbo" is? I know I may sound stupid here, but techinically, there's the possibility that an image could be randomly drawn in MS Paint that resembles the image of a Habbo, but what's the techinical definition of a "Habbo"?

And also, if you made an "alteration" like the image in question but with no actual Habbo characters, (so just buildings etc), would Sulake still have the right to claim copyright over that?

I just think it would make an interesting debate .

Just shows how much knowledge you have on the point you are trying to argue against.

Under Copyright prevention laws nothing needs to have "Copyrighted by blah blah [date] - [date]" on it to be Copyrighted or have to go through any legal procedure to be Copyrighted, the right to copy is to the person(s) who originally created it. People usually put "Copyrighted" to strengthen it but it is not legally needed.

That is different from a patent or a trademark btw, which i'm sure would need it.

Nicely explained, +rep .

[Trinity]

And also, if you made an "alteration" like the image in question but with no actual Habbo characters, (so just buildings etc), would Sulake still have the right to claim copyright over that?

I just think it would make an interesting debate .

Well it wouldn't really be a debate, it would be a simple answer, no.
If the created image has absolutely no reference to habbo, then Sulake have no rights over it at all, they don't own all pixel art.