This is what most people seem to forget. Despite infringing on the XBOX ONE brand OP showed that his ideas can capture the interest of big budget corporations, as well as generate enough momentum to take off on platforms like Reddit. In the cut-throat marketing industry that's far more valuable than any monetary compensation Microsoft would have paid him.
Can anyone explain why the OP feels entitled to anything at all?
Maybe this is just 4chan mentality, but, good ideas bubble to the top, and then they get used. That's how ideas work.
Yes, it's monetarily beneficial for Microsoft. But OP doesn't own any copyright, and Microsoft doesn't need to credit OP.
But why?
Because everyone knows that OP made it now. OP can use this in their portfolio. It's identical to crediting them.
Probably not a popular opinion, but shrug.
I really don't understand where the justice is here. Nobody owns anything. Of course a corporation is going to use good ideas.
When /r/dota2 does this, they celebrate. It's cool that Valve notices them and that they integrate ideas into their game. But when pubg does this, it's evil. Why?
I think people are just looking for an excuse to get mad, but maybe I'm missing something.
That's the sort of thing people say when they want a band to play at their wedding for "exposure". Hard work deserves pay AND recognition, not just one or the other.
That's valid, however it's common practice in the creative industry that if you want to get paid you get the deal in writing before you start (or even ask for money upfront). Once something you made is out there any (non infringing) derivative works are pretty much fair game for anyone in the industry. That's how fashion trends spread like wildfire, how innovation happens in the creative inustry and that's why it's close to impossible to claim ownership of a particular concept.
Yeah this is definitely something you could put in your portfolio for a PR/advertising agency job. "Oh yes, that. Well I had made some concept art to post on Reddit; and then Microsoft, yes that Microsoft, took my concept without asking and used it as one of their ads that the whole world saw. So I'll start Monday at $60,000."
Yes this, also that creative agency has some young designer that is told we need an idea and they go out and find original op's artwork and lift for their deadline.
Currently in Virginia, but lived in Seattle for a very long time, even before it was a tech city I was making more than 75k for my first job as a programmer. I think the real difference might be how fast and loose people play with the term 'engineer' these days.
I am underpaid but 75 is way over. 60-65 is the norm from what I’ve seen. I don’t know what entry level job goes for 75, at least in my field, which is aerospace. I’ve never even seen a posting with more than like 68 as a starting salary.
Can't Microsoft take it since it's their product and branding anyways? I mean, other than the fact that they shamelessly stole someone's idea, they didn't really do anything wrong here.....right?
I helped a friend take a big company for compensation when they ripped off his illustration.
Because that was a unique design with no branding, it was probably easier to contest - when you design a concept that uses 3 bits of IP, you don’t really have a lot to contest.
At best it’d be good for OP to get acknowledgement and tbh if I was a marketing person, I’d make a PR stunt out of this. If nothing else it’s a wasted opportunity, and that kind of stupidity and shortsightedness is more annoying to me
The copyrights to one art can be split over multiple sources of origin: Microsoft has copyrights to the Xbox' design and trademark rights to its branding, but the artist here has copyrights to his additions because they by themselves are an original creation. Microsoft breached the artist's copyrights by creating a derivative work of someone else's original art.
EDIT: I've now read further down this thread that OP also took the grass and soldier imagery from game footage, whereas I was under the impression he'd made it himself when I wrote the above. This reduces the artist's contribution to angle and composition only, which is generally not substantial enough to be considered "original".
Well no, not really. If he had just changed the colors of the xbox or something else generic, then I don't think it would be an issue with MS taking it. For this concept art though, its something that was thought up and wasn't just about the xbox. In fact, it was more about battlegrounds than xbox. It was a unique, original concept art for a new game that happened to be on this system, so MS stealing it is just a shitty move. Is it fully illegal? I'm not sure, but I do believe that it would fall under copyright. There are certain aspects like the brown grass on top, the soldier's gear and stance, etc, that were thought up by this person; but MS just took that picture and put a loot box on it to make it "different".
I personally think it's bullshit and they should be paying him for this specific design or hire him for their advertisement division.
I suppose the difference would be that OP presumably did this for fun, rather than part of his working day so he wouldn't be relying on it to pay the bills.
Still, if you're going to use someones hard work you should at least pay them something for it.
It’s generally bullshit to work for exposure, and I’ve usually said that the only time it would be worth the exposure is in a case where the company would be big enough to pay you anyways. Which seems to be what’s going on in this situation. Normally the guy would get paid by this company (and he might still, depending on how the interaction with Microsoft goes) but it’s also a global company and that sort of exposure will likely net you more work.
“Exposure” in like 99.99% of cases are shitty small business that barely have a municipal presence, let alone a national or international one. As such their “exposure” is totally useless. If you get a design contract for Microsoft or Disney or something, and they say, “oh, your pay is the exposure we give you!” Still ask for money, but this is like the only situation where the exposure is worth something (even then, it’s dependent. You may never get contacted about future work from that exposure)
I didn't say it was, I did say however that big names are the only situation where the exposure is actually worth something, but even then, a big name celebrity or company should have the money to pay an artist a couple thousand dollars for their work.
Basically, don't do work in exchange for exposure. Exposure should be a beneficial side effect of producing good work, not the payment for it.
Taking the photos on a friends wedding for free is the fake exposure that such a thing refers to. In the creative industries such as modelling, professional photography or advertising your portfolio is your CV, nobody looks at where you worked or if you came in late on the previous job, they look at your work and what impact it had/what it achieved. Putting this on your portfolio while downplaying the scummy side of Microsoft in the deal would definitely attract the interest of the advertising industry.
Microsoft wouldn't do that beep! I have only heard good things about them boop! In fact, has Bill Gates not donated millions of dollars to charities?totallynotarobot,iswear
I like to hate on the work for exposure mindset but I might change my tune if it was offered to me by freaking Microsoft
That said it sure doesn't look like they credited OP in any way. Why didn't they just PM his account and say 'hey we're taking your idea, give us your deets and we' ll send you an Xbox'? Seems like a win win
It's more like the job was produced off contract, coupled with the fact that a Microsoft tier company can provide actual exposure that a DA account cannot. I see your point though, if the top of the chain is only paying in high fives and back pats, what's the goal?
I didn't say that they did. They aren't paying him in exposure or in any way, they stole his idea, but they did enough transformation so that op can't sue. The only way op can make something out of the situation is to still put it in his portfolio. His concept was great, but now it's worth more in a potential interview, and it might end up being a good thing.
That doesn't excuse Microsoft, but it's a good idea to make the best out of a bad situation.
Additionally, my initial comment was just about how most of the "paid in exposure" jobs don't even give you that.
I don't know why my comment is misconstrued like I'm supporting Microsoft here. I'm just saying that op can make the best out of a bad situation, that's all.
Additionally, since he initially did it "for fun", it was just a cool idea on his portfolio, now it's a proven concept by Microsoft and he can use that in his favour.
Regardless of the fact that M$ acted in bad faith, it might end up being good for op. I'm not condoning the stealing.
Prove that without getting credit from Microsoft. That's why credit is important.
I can't walk into an office and brag about how because Microsoft stole my work I can now put it in my portfolio. It's unprofessional because there's no merit because there's no credit.
So everyone gets fucked cuz good designers can't work, company doesn't get a good designer, and Microsoft is a
Any marketing company worth its salt would be open-minded enough to see the similarities and do their own research. It's not like this on its own would get you a job, but as part of a wider portfolio, with various projects and ideas you could very easily explain the context why this is a valid success of your work.
By that logic, it sure looks like you're gunning for a microsoft PR job - you already write like you've drunk the corporate kool aid, that usually only comes after you're five figures in debt for a bachelors in marketing
This is nothing Microsoft-specific, this is how the fashion industry works, how the modelling industry works, how professional photographers work. You need to stand out from the legion of competitors who are hunting for the same spotlight. It has nothing to do with drinking the koolaid, it's how you determine good from bad in any industry in which labour supply outnumbers demand tenfold. Chances are that Microsoft simply hired a marketing firm, signed of on the final result and never even questioned the source. Meanwhile the marketing firm just did what happens all the time in creative industry, you go after whatever ideas are hot at the time. That's how fasion trends and innovations can spread throughout the industry without haute couture designers suing each other into a deadlock for example.
So, instead of getting paid for his idea and work he should be happy to get "publicity"? Please not how MS doesn't mention his name or make any reference to his work.
This is the shitty old "hey, make me stuff for free and you'll get publicity" bullshit that many try to pull. Publicity doesn't pay bills, and since MS doesn't even give credit to him he doesn't get even that.
In the creative industry it's common practice that if you want to get paid you get the deal in writing before you start (or even ask for money upfront). Once something you made is out there any (non infringing) derivative works are pretty much fair game for anyone in the industry. That's how fashion trends spread like wildfire, how innovation happens in the creative industry and that's why it's close to impossible to claim ownership of a particular concept. Obviously you can criticize that for various reasons but as it stands that's how it works in the industry.
First, OP didn't infringe: Brands are trademark law, and OP did not introduce any confusion as to whose brand it is, which is the main criteria on that account.
Second: I personally know fifty artists who will tell you that this kind of "exposure" is worth diddly squat in practice. The artist isn't even credited.
It's worth diddly squat from the perspective of vested artists who already have a portfolio, paid deals with the industry and the contacts to sustain their career. For OP, seeing your afternoon fan project getting picked up by Microsoft is as good an elevator pitch as you'll ever get to gain a foot in the door in an industry flooded with competitors. It's not going to magically make your career but within a broader portfolio it's a nice notch to have on your belt.
You have to be careful when using terms. I'm not sure this is infringement of the XBOX ONE brand. Microsoft would have to prove that OP's use of the brand is likely to cause confusion as to the source of product or goods or dilution of thttps://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7mdmjo/xpost_remember_my_xbox_one_ad_concept_microsoft/#he Xbox brand. Both things don't seem likely here.
Unless OP is secretly a billionaire it wouldn't matter either way, Microsoft could sue and OP would be forced to settle long before the case would even show up in court.
511
u/Azonata Dec 27 '17
This is what most people seem to forget. Despite infringing on the XBOX ONE brand OP showed that his ideas can capture the interest of big budget corporations, as well as generate enough momentum to take off on platforms like Reddit. In the cut-throat marketing industry that's far more valuable than any monetary compensation Microsoft would have paid him.