If Capcom hadn't already suffered enough from last November's data leak, it's now facing a $12 million lawsuit.
Designer Judy A. Juracek took action on Friday in a Connecticut court within the United States, alleging Capcom used copyrighted photos from her 1996 book Surfaces without her permission.
Her work contains a collection of more than 1,200 texture photographs intended for visual research. It also comes with a CD-ROM of all of the images which commercial companies must license in order to use.
At this point, you should be able to see where this is going. Juracek claims Capcom didn't take this important step and apparently, over 200 of her images have been repurposed across various video games. The lawsuit shows over 80 of these - covering series like Resident Evil and Devil May Cry.
One of the many examples highlighted was the logo of Resident Evil 4. Here's a look (via VGC):
In addition to this, there's a claim that one of the images found within Capcom's data breach had the same file name as one from the Surfaces CD.
Juracek's legal reps are asking for $12 million in damages for copyright infringement and $2500 - $25,000 for each photograph used. The lawsuit also references previous allegations made by a filmmaker in April, who accused Capcom of plagiarising monster designs in Resident Evil Village.
You can read more about Capcom's data leak in our previous post and see the full case over on Scribd.
[source polygon.com, via videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 102
She's right.
I can't think of something more.
Someone didn't read the readme file.
Man, Capcom isn't having a fun decade so far, aren't they?
First they get a security breach, and now they get (rightfully) sued?
It is amazing to see when huge and experienced companies such as Capcom make mistakes like this. Having said that... 12 million sounds somewhat excessive.
Memories of Okami's IGN watermark.
@Ooyah At the same time, given how well the games infringing on her copyright have sold, $12 million may just be a drop in the bucket.
(Plus, the legal fees for a case like this are probably going to be humongous, so better cover your ground)
@Ooyah well if the copyright material was used 12 million might be right number.
Depending on the sales and such.
Working in the creative sector allot of this common especially during the concept face and stuff like this can slip through. 😬
They should simply make all people involved in the game making process sign a "All your work are belong to us!" clause and they will save these headaches later. Otherwise just refuse to work with them
I would argue the logo is transformative work, it's barely recognizable from the original image.
I think we can say Nintendo are safe as the games they've attempted semi realism in feature the worst texture work in the business. No artist would want to put their name to it 😂😂😂😂
@Zuljaras But the artist here didn't work for them. The lawsuit states they took images from a book she published in the 90s and used them without acquiring the proper license.
@blodermoder Even if the final image looked nothing like the original one, if they used her work to produce that final image, they should pay her, because they're profiting from her work.
@cookiex Ahhh got it Thanks. Well we will see how it turns out. I have seen this stuff happen with art books but nobody got what they want in the end.
Karma; I approve a refund of RE3 Remake fiasco this way.
This is quite the infringement, Capcom will be on the hook for this one. Maybe not $12 million, but it’ll be interesting to see.
She does right.
Well the fact that Ultra Street Fighter II is still not back on the NA eShop yet I would guess maybe Capcom got sued by Udon too. As y'all know Ultra SFII was a lazy reskin of HD Remix ported to Switch. The original Super SFII Turbo HD Remix use Udon's art styles for the character portraits and redrawn sprites. In Ultra Capcom removed all the redrawn artworks with HD versions of their Super Turbo artworks whiles keeping the Udon styles redrawn sprites and backgrounds. I'm not saying this is the case that had the game remove but due to lawsuit like this one at this point I wouldn't be that surprised if it is.
This isn't the first time Capcom plagiarize other company's work either.
Wouldn't there be some kind of loophole that the evidence can't be used in court as it was illegally obtained? (the data breach?)
Maybe I just watch too many law dramas.
Either way, Capcom have some explaining to do.
To be honest, it looks just like randomly generated noise that looks very similar.
I do hope Capcom will send their best lawyer.
@Darkyoshi98
“It happened years ago, so it doesn’t count anymore.” That is the dumbest defence I’ve ever heard.
@Letzgo077
And you my friend, need glasses.
The leaks/rumours about Capcom accepting Sony's scummy $$$ offer to make RE8 run better on PS4 and PS5 than the XB1 and XSX makes me think this is a result of bad karma. Of course they deserve to be sued.
This article only shows one image, but if you read some of the other articles with many more images it becomes more obvious that Capcom is in the wrong. There’s a design on a door from a mansion in Newport that is not open to the public that she had an image of. Capcom used the same image on a door.
@MarioFanatic64 Given that the critical evidence is in the finished games, and the leak only shows where to look, I'm fairly certain this case could proceed even without introducing evidence from the leak if that was the case.
@Darkyoshi98 If you read the details of the lawsuit, it explains that she didn't know about it until recently. Presumably she found out about it due to people making the connection and contacting her after the data breach.
Considering video game companies have been stealing from other media since the industry got it's start, this isn't surprising. Just look at all the games back in the day that ripped off H.R. Giger and Blade Runner and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kinda makes sense that this industry never stopped stealing, though Capcom and everyone else absolutely deserves to be sued for it.
I'm guessing that it would've been no more than a couple hundred bucks to acquire the rights. I am also guessing it was the designer(s) who didn't pay close enough attention to where they got their textures from, so probably very few people actively knew of the infringment.
She's totally in the right. It annoys me that such a big company would just blatantly use someone else's work without even considering that they deserve payment for it. As much as I like Capcom they did a bad here and deserve to be punished for it.
Why is she suing them just now exactly? I can't take this lawsuit seriously when stuff like that happens.
@Old-Red You know they were used decades ago right? Think you're overreacting
@Entrr_username what do you mean? The leaks from last year have given her undeniable proof that they stole her work and used it without her permission. Why wouldn't she want to get paid for it?
I like that one them is name devil may care
@ChrisHoi How about the fact that she's only suing them now over uses from many years ago?
@cookiex @scrubicius
Fair enough, guys... maybe I have made a comment without actually knowing enough about it. Am happy to stand corrected!
@Entrr_username As stated elsewhere, she only found out about Capcom's actions recently, and these old games are still being sold. So what exactly do you gain from defending enormous corporations?
Something tells me Capcom will win this, even though they're in the wrong here.
@Zebetite I'm not defending anything. I'm just wondering how she never realized her own art was being used for so long and why it's still liable for copyright infringement despite how long ago it was
OK, Capcom, pay her for her work. It's as simple as that in this case imo.
@blodermoder I don't think it works quite like that in this particular case because they've not just taken her work and transformed it for fun and/or educational purposes and/or in some free fan projects; they have used her work directly in their games and have made hundreds of millions of dollars by directly selling and profiting from those games, of which these images/textures are part of. The creator of the original work should be paid when their work is used in cases like this, and this artist clearly wasn't. So, yeah, pay her.
This is not the same thing as when I in particular argue that Nintendo should not be allowed to totally shut down some fan-made project that uses its copyrighted material and is simply being enjoyed and shared by fans where no direct payment is required to enjoy such fan works. When money/profit is involved it's a whole different matter, especially when it's some huge corporation doing the deed that has lawyers and the like that absolutely 100% know better.
@Entrr_username Iuli explains this nicely, and again, many of the products are still being sold. Money is still being made off of Judy's work. If these games had been sitting untouched for decades, Judy would have a harder time making her case, but when you can go on most any gaming storefront and purchase Resident Evil 4, the lawsuit is absolutely relevant.
@iuli Yeah, it doesn't work like that if the person/company that created said character is still around and using that character and indeed still owns and renews the ownership/copyright/trademarks for it whenever necessary. It usually only works the way you think if the creator of a character or story is looong dead and/or no one really owns the rights anymore because the copyright/trademark literally ran out and they entered the public domain. Mickey Mouse and Mario have not entered the public domain, that I'm aware of, and probably won't for a long, long time, if ever. Although, in principle, I kinda agree that after a certain reasonable time that most stuff like this should eventually be released into the public domain, just as characters and stories like King Kong and Jack and the Beanstalk and Pinnochio and Snow White and Hansel and Gretel and Sherlock Holmes and Shakespeare's works and Mozart's music and so on are, but that should be an actual reasonable time that allows the original creator(s) to solely and fully take advantage of and profit from their creations, probably like 100 years or something like that (Hint: It's currently 70 years in the UK, and 70 years after the creator's death in Europe).
But, according to a quick search online, [the original Steamboat Willy design for] Mickey Mouse actually comes into the public domain in 2024--unless Disney lobbies the powers that be to once again alter the rules in its favour, as it has already done previously, which is why [the original Steamboat Willy design for] Mickey Mouse isn't already in the public domain right now.
BUT, Disney still has the character Trademarked too, and that apparently doesn't expire until so long as the property is in the public consciousness, which Mickey Mouse clearly is, seeing as he's still used in cartoons and games and so on to this day.
Seems pretty open and shut. That means it'll take like 6 years to see resolution.
@xxx128 Being based on a person has different laws than original art. For example, if you are a public figure, your likeness can be used without your permission in certain circumstances, especially if it is altered, even slightly. Original art and images, though, are protected by copy write. Essentially, you can copy write art, but you can’t copy write your likeness.
@blodermoder That just doesn't fly. Artists are not appreciated enough for their hard work, and her business revolves around companies using her work in exactly this way. She cannot make a profit if this line of thinking applies, because almost every use of her art is "transformative" by design. That doesn't just give anyone the right to go and steal her hard work without paying the way she intended.
She is an artist who probably makes diddly squat compared to the designers at Capcom and to see your work being used without credit or payment in a famous franchise should rightfully make her peeved.
@Entrr_username Video games aren’t as famous as people would like to believe, despite selling high numbers. I meet people all the time that don’t know who Mario is, let alone a more niche title like Resident Evil. That being said, it’s entirely possible for someone to not have heard of one of Capcoms games, let alone that person also recognize their art assets being used in different areas of a games development. The other part of your question, which is about time. The simple answer is that there are two types of crimes dealt with: criminal and civil. Criminal and civil laws have different statutes of limitations, or different time limits. They also have different punishments. Criminal almost always involves jail time, because you did a PUBLIC offense and broke public law. A civil offense means that you caused provable financial damage to an individual, such as the case with copy write infringement. Civil cases rarely involve jail time, and have different stipulations regarding how long you can wait to sue for damages. I’m heavily simplifying, but that’s the gist for American law, which this seems to fall under.
@Ghost_of_Hasashi
If I remember correctly Udon was credited in Ultra.
@iuli Not to mention, it will probably be settled outside of court, since this seems to be a civil case and not a criminal one. It will certainly reach court if the two parties can’t agree to a fair resolution, though.
@iuli Indeed, regarding your Edit: 2 point.
@dont_simp_for_them the guy said it didn't matter about the theft because it was over 16 years ago.
I used Savile to emphasise that if someone has done wrong then the time frame shouldn't hold any bearing.
I didn't compare IP theft to sexual abuse, just in the timescale it took victims to come forward doesn't negate the crime in either case.
@Mr-Fuggles777 Both are totally different. Here you can give actual proof on the matter even after 16 years.
But those sexual victims can't do that. It has to be just after the assault. I do not think that saying you have been sexually assaulted 16 years ago counts as proof of ANY kind.
Those just want to get the quick bucks.
@Mr-Fuggles777 I understand, but that was just a rather heavy event you used, when we're here because of video games lol. Carry on!
Capcom, pay the woman her due. I’m all for creators (be it big companies or small resource creators like this lady) getting paid for their hard earned work. That includes sources devs lift from. The sucky part is I doubt management knew about it. Just probably some dev crunched for time that figured no one would notice. Gross.
@Entrr_username @sanderev @Letzgo077
The file for the images are called the same thing as from her CD. This isn’t a debate or a frivolous lawsuit - they used her images and that’s a fact. The reason why it’s now - is because she would only know for certain they are her images now she has the file names from the leaked files.
This is a lawsuit that’s almost impossible to side with the big business as they’ve been caught bang to rights and even still people like you side with the big rich business - which is why when there isn’t such damning and unrefutable evidence cases like this are hard to win for the little person. Big business should act better and pay small people for their work and not steal it.
This isn’t a case where there is even a debate they are the exact files from the disc and they haven’t even bothered changing their name
This is a minor detail on the logo, the use of the photo had arguably zero impact on the game's sales. Capcom is in the wrong, but I just mean that 12 million is too much.
She seems to be right, but 12 million is insane. Try 5% of that.
@Stocksy That's for the judge to decide though.
Everything still can be a coincidence. This woman does not hold exclusive rights to the things she photographed nor the filenames. Because then I have exclusive rights to the filename document.doc. And all the pictures of the Eiffel Tower that are stored in a file named document.doc.
But no, luckily, copyright isn't that simple.
I bet the CD got put into their library, either knowingly or unknowingly, and then people just used the images without ever looking into the source. Not the devs fault, I imagine, but still stealong. Whoops. Pay up, Capcom.
@nesrocks It doesn’t matter how much of an impact the logo had on sales. The point of that example was to prove, as just another piece of evidence not unlike the names of the files she uses, that Capcom had circumvented paying her for the rights of the image use. $12MM sounds more punitive but I’m sure it will be settled out of court.
@ChrisHoi honestly there isn’t a comparison good enough to win a lawsuit.
If you literally look at all the photos in question there are differences in every one of them. This lawsuit is bogus and just a payday someone is trying to get.
I would wish that such Lawsuits would face Companies (Springer in Germany) with a heavy Lobby to make Copyright even Worse.
@Ashunera84 I'm assuming it's to make settling out of court more attractive.
Not much I want to add to the conversation at this point except that it's extremely common to sue for damages at the highest plausible figure and then settle it down to something more viable.
That being said, I'm curious how many people here defended Nintendo's rights to sue a rom distributor for damages yet are dismissing the rights of an artist to be paid by Capcom despite the company's unauthorized use of her work.
@sanderev not even a close comparison. Ridiculous to use that example. I have no idea how people like you minds work. Why do you want to defend capcom in this case? I’m genuinely confused by why so many feel the need to question this case in the way they are.
This isn’t a picture of a landmark this is back ground artwork someone worked hard on and named. It’s not a “coincidence” that capcom would chose the exact same name.
God help us all that people like you walk among us and even worse get the right to vote!!
Gosh, $12m seems a tad on the greedy side!
12mils sounds about right considering they didn't even ask for permission to use them or pay to use them. You or I am not the one to decide the value they are to the Artists whom created them-that's their value for their work oh whom never paid them. So it's good Capcom got caught with their pants down.
@ARPK were talking about IP ROM that wasn't paid for and pirated for another person benefit. They were the one whom paid for and created those games and since they still own the name they own the game. They never said it was a free for all. What part of IP did you not read.
Sounds like alot of people on here needs to go back to Business 102 and read up on IP, Patent Infringement and Copyright patents-see why those are there for a reason even if you don't like them. As other said why didn't she know. Now people are going after the messenger, it's kill the messenger mentality-she can't police everything she makes, what she expects is those using it would contact and ask for permission and pay something to use it. If they did the right thing we wouldn't have all to IP lawsuits.
No way they get 12 million out of this. But they should get paid for each game they worked on without their knowledge. It's only fair
@Ooyah Humans work there. Humans do stupid stuff, sometimes.
@SwitchForce Seems like the comments overwhelmingly in favor of her getting compensated. You'll always have contrarians, though.
@SwitchForce Chill out. I read the article. Maybe you should go back and re-read my comment, since it seems like you're the one who's confused. I understand perfectly fine what happened — and this is why companies have permissions departments and acquisitions coordinators in the first place. It was likely an honest mistake, but it's one Capcom is now liable to pay for and rightly so.
In the future, I'd also suggest being more specific about what you're talking about instead of just referring to every subject with the word "they".
Not only that. She also wants all media including games to be destroyed that has her work.
Which means deleting RE4, RE1R, DMC from existence.
A lot of talk of "should" happen, but here is what WILL happen, legally.
It might get dismissed - Data coming from a hack is all types of inadmissible. However, it's just e-mail, and you can get e-mail in discovery (part of a trail), so they will just have to show enough evidence outside the hack to warrant a trail. This will probably come down to some judge eye balling the infringing work.
12 million is a joke, here is how the award will be worked out -
First a fine from $200 - $100,000, which isn't paid to the victim. This is PER WORK ... so sucks that she made a book of them seeing that means all 200 images are one infringement.
Next the judge works out how much money the CR holder LOST because they couldn't sell their work as it was available from the infringer. That's a big-ol-goose egg in this case.
Next the Judge assigns a % to how much of Capcom's sales of Resident Evil and Devil May Cry were because of the infringement; how much of the total profit was from being able to charge more or getting additional sales from the infringement. Seeing these game sell online without art no problem, that is also almost certainly going to be zero. (This is where the $12 million comes from. It's common for the prosecutor to assign a completely unreasonable % to this number and seek that in damages. It's like when you boss asks you how much you want to get paid and you say a billion billion dollars.)
Given they are both going to be zero she could, BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS GIVEN, ask for statutory damages instead. The Judge then picks a number between $250-$30,000, which she gets.
And we're done! She gets next to nothing, pays all her own legal fees, and Capcom gets, at most, a $100,000 fine and has to pay out $30,000.
UNLESS she can prove it was wilful infringement, which is about as easy as buying 7 lotto tickets and winning on all of them. Without a e-mail saying "Let's use these pictures, and even though we know the copyright is held by someone else, let's not pay that person. To clear, I am aware that what we are doing would fit the legal definition of copyright infringement yet I am still choosing to do it" ... it's almost impossible to meet your burden of evidence.
If that happens ... Statutory damages can be as high as $150,000 and Capcom has to cover legal fees. Woohoo?
The reason they call it "corporate law" is because it's here to protect corporations.
@HeadPirate wow. That is... interesting
https://kotaku.com/lawsuit-claims-capcom-stole-pictures-for-resident-evil-1847040659
@GameOtaku Then that probably wasn't it.
12 mil plus? Did people buy the game because of her work? The game would have still been a success even without her artwork. People who were directly involved with development probably don’t get paid near as much.
Lol you cant copyright images that never belonged to you...smh
"SwitchForce9:16am
12mils sounds about right considering they didn't even ask for permission to use them or pay to use them"
ignorance must be bliss
@Gamepro500 ??? They're her images. It's how licensed stock photos work.
Found this on a blog if this helps anyone digest the $12,000,000 amount.
"Apparently copyright infringement involving images that are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office allows for statutory damages of up to $30,000, or $150,000 if it can be demonstrated it was a willful act."
If you do the math for 80 images you'll get your $12,000,000 number. (If curious, the article's about how a company lost $4000 over not licensing a $10 image https://blog.webcopyplus.com/2011/02/14/legal-lesson-learned-copywriter-pays-4000-for-10-photo/)
"They're her images."
wrong
"Surfaces is a collection of 1,200 photographs of textures that Juracek photographed herself; the book is intended to be used for “visual research” for artists, architects, and designers, according to the book’s description"
Wrong again 16 years to late.
Looks like Gamepro500 is 16 years to late as well. Their her images that is what copyright means. She put them in a book that legally means she owns them. Regardless of how much spin you put on it they are hers and not yours. So stop being corporates slave and think some more here. If that you saying is true the anyone can patent any companies patent and use the same excuse your using 16 years to late. I doubt those CEO would agree with your luscious 16 years time line.
"Their her images that is what copyright means. She put them in a book that legally means she owns them."
smh....16 years too late to have common sence
@iuli Not what I'm saying.
@Zebetite @BloodNinja It's still a ridiculous case IMO if it's regarding art from 25 years ago. I highly doubt she didn't know about any of Capcom's games for so long.
@Stocksy No one is siding with any big business. And you really need to calm tf down and realize that even though she has a case, she's still likely screwed since she's going after a huge company like Capcom
@Gamepro500
You're both wrong.
1) The book has nothing to do with it. You own a copy right to every picture you ever take, period. It's a specific exclusion in copy right law that you in no way need to register or document ownership, you just have to have a physical or digital copy.
2) If your photo has someone else's copy right in it or is someone famous, you still own the picture but you can't reproduce it, sell it, or use it in any way without that copy right holder's permission.
3) 16? Try 50. Your picture enters public domain after 50 years, at which time anyone can use it. At any time before that, it's infringement.
@cookiex Considering the obvious infringement, would be much cheaper to settle out of court. The plaintiff knows this and the defendant will too. This will never see a court room.
Sure looks like the same texture in the example. Pretty lame if they did this illegally... Ditto on ripping off monster designs if that's true as well.
@Kieroni this is exactly what my initial thought was. The people using her work may not of known where it had come from, perhaps thinking it was old unused Capcom assets. Perhaps someone uploads the CD, leaves the company, and others don't realize it was copyrighted material. Either way, Capcom will pay, though probably just a fraction of the 12 million when it's all settled.
@Gradius
I explain this in a long post, but that's not what's happening.
If you take statutory instead of real damage, you get that flat amount for ALL infringements, combined. You are basically admitting to the judge you didn't lose any money and the company didn't profit from your work. You also would only get $250 to $30,000 because proving intent is basically impossible.
The 12 million comes from saying that the artists missed profits and the extra money Capcom made because of the photo was 12 million. It's never even close to reality (in fact real damages here are almost surely zero) but you always put an insanely high number because the law is stupid.
@Darkyoshi98 I guess you missed the part of the article where it says most of the evidence was obtained & discovered due to the recent data breach. It's pretty clear the breach is what brought the plagiarism to their attention
@sanderev You didn't read the article right? There were MANY images used without permission...
Considering how much capcom overcharge on switch, maybe they should multiply that 12 million by at least 4.
@Krockman so she claims. Like I said, that's up to the judge. I am against trial by social media / internet.
I’m just here amazed by the fact the last name Juracek exists. She should open a park with the money Capcom gives her.
I'm here to laugh at all the armchair lawyers...
Remember to pay for the stuff you use, yo.
Guy who submitted final Resident Evil 4 Logo:
…”Oops!🤷🏼“
@Xiovanni This deserved WAY more likes.
"Whaddya stealin'?"
Nothing is going to happen here. The case is unsustainable. The logo has no resemblance at all… furthermore, Capcom is not profiting over a logo.
Tap here to load 102 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...