Guild Wars 2

This guy from Dragon Nest II Legend promo pictures looks weirdly like Braham – wields a mace, one side of hair shaved, save for the lock of hair, only half of his torso covered. Also tattoos looking like norn ones (I know Braham doesn’t have those, but still). Can this be considered stealing of copyrighted… character, I dunno?

There is also a character in league of legends called braum who is a norse strongman with a shield and mace and is really strong

Unless someone has patented the human body, no, that is not stealing or could be considered copyrighted. Especially since that is pretty much like any generic “fantasy viking” character.

Here is brahams concept art

It is not Anet who invented huge fat ugly characters. Anet gave us only nice things.

Looks more like a “character type.” The beefy, half naked warrior with tattoos and a punk hairstyle is sort of a cliche.

InsidiousWaffle.7086:

There is also a character in league of legends called braum who is a norse strongman with a shield and mace and is really strong

Just a shield.

I think it’s a stretch. By that same reasoning the line of “who copied who” would never end. Norns themselves aren’t an original idea, either.

By the way, unless Anet is paying us, they probably don’t need us to be their copyright police. Just saying…

And i doubt that Anet copyrighted Brahams appearance.

I have no doubt whatsoever ArenaNet trademarked Braham’s likeness (which is NOT copyright btw). Thing is, no one can trademark “all muscular dudes in vaguely Nordic dress with woad/tattoos”. You have to be much, MUCH closer to the specific character, and humans are VERY good indeed at facial recognition.

Wanze.8410:

And i doubt that Anet copyrighted Brahams appearance.

You own the copyright to any work you create, regardless of whether you officially register your copyright or not.

Copyright doesn’t come into it unless it’s just that – a copy. This isn’t – it is at best a reinterpretation that looks similar, but honestly, it could even be coincidental.

Nike.2631:

I have no doubt whatsoever ArenaNet trademarked Braham’s likeness (which is NOT copyright btw). Thing is, no one can trademark “all muscular dudes in vaguely Nordic dress with woad/tattoos”. You have to be much, MUCH closer to the specific character, and humans are VERY good indeed at facial recognition.

Eh, I think they’d have a stronger case for copyright here than trademark. IANAL, but my understanding is that trademark is for things that identify a company brand, like names (e.g. Nike), phrases (e.g. “Just do it”) and logos (e.g. the Nike swoosh). Logos can often fall under both trademark and copyright, but something like Braham’s likeness, since it’s not really being used as an image for identifying ArenaNet in the market, would almost certainly just be under copyright. You only see a person’s likeness being trademarked if that likeness is an identifying part of their brand. And if it’s a fictional person’s likeness, that would very likely still fall under copyright as well.

while similar, there is nothing here Anet would be able to sue or make a claim for. too many differences between the concept/actual and this image. its close, but you can tell thats not braham.

glehmann.9586:

Nike.2631:

I have no doubt whatsoever ArenaNet trademarked Braham’s likeness (which is NOT copyright btw). Thing is, no one can trademark “all muscular dudes in vaguely Nordic dress with woad/tattoos”. You have to be much, MUCH closer to the specific character, and humans are VERY good indeed at facial recognition.

Eh, I think they’d have a stronger case for copyright here than trademark. IANAL, but my understanding is that trademark is for things that identify a company brand, like names (e.g. Nike), phrases (e.g. “Just do it”) and logos (e.g. the Nike swoosh). Logos can often fall under both trademark and copyright, but something like Braham’s likeness, since it’s not really being used as an image for identifying ArenaNet in the market, would almost certainly just be under copyright. You only see a person’s likeness being trademarked if that likeness is an identifying part of their brand. And if it’s a fictional person’s likeness, that would very likely still fall under copyright as well.

Oooh. I love it when copyright issues come up in forums! Because it just shows how cloudy and convoluted the issue is. : D

(Seriously, I do love a good copyright debate…)

In my opinion: They have no claim. They might have a copyright on the character, but it would be a very weak copyright, as Braham isn’t a very well-developed or well-known character. (Character copyrights are very weak.) They may have a copyright on the character model itself, or on the concept art. But that hasn’t been violated. They can’t hold copyright over something generic, like a likeness, or a concept, or even a “style”.

In this instance, they have literally got nothing. In the instance with that dragon image from another thread, they might have a claim. But even that wasn’t a definite. Copyright is a very tricky issue, and eventually, it all depends on how much money you have and are willing to spend in court, what the judge’s personal opinion is, how much hand waving you can do, etc.

glehmann.9586:

Wanze.8410:

And i doubt that Anet copyrighted Brahams appearance.

You own the copyright to any work you create, regardless of whether you officially register your copyright or not.

Are you sure about that? Seems strange to me. Not to mention almost impossible to prove you are the first to create something and are therefore the ‘owner’.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

glehmann.9586:

Wanze.8410:

And i doubt that Anet copyrighted Brahams appearance.

You own the copyright to any work you create, regardless of whether you officially register your copyright or not.

Are you sure about that? Seems strange to me. Not to mention almost impossible to prove you are the first to create something and are therefore the ‘owner’.

Probably true, but in this case it would be like saying “omg their drawn pectoral muscles on that human look exactly like the pectoral muscles I drew on my human, wtf copyright!!!”.

Really, this is a pointless argument. The character design may be in similar style, but its clearly not the same character.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

glehmann.9586:

Wanze.8410:

And i doubt that Anet copyrighted Brahams appearance.

You own the copyright to any work you create, regardless of whether you officially register your copyright or not.

Are you sure about that? Seems strange to me. Not to mention almost impossible to prove you are the first to create something and are therefore the ‘owner’.

It’s…technically correct.
However, in order to file suit against somebody over copyright, you will have to file for the copyright officially, first. And anything you crank out isn’t necessarily going to be given a copyright. And even if you are granted a copyright, the court may still rule against you, in which case…you’ve got nothing, really.

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

glehmann.9586:

You own the copyright to any work you create, regardless of whether you officially register your copyright or not.

Are you sure about that? Seems strange to me. Not to mention almost impossible to prove you are the first to create something and are therefore the ‘owner’.

Copyright applies from the moment a work is created.

One trick people have been known to use to prove a creation date is to mail themselves a copy of their work when the first create it. That way, later on when they need to prove when they created, they have a sealed package with a post mark confirming the date.