Check out the patch notes for the v17 Precursor Update here:



Last Active
March 5, 1987

MapleStory 2 Rep

  • Copyright and UGC

    Ideghallia wrote: »
    I'm probably going to have a very unpopular opinion here, but I think none of it should be allowed, even if slightly altered or immensely altered. Part of it is because I am an artist and I want to see people get creative with their designs and in my eyes, actually earn their merets because it is a valuable currency in this game as it costs actual money to acquire. Plus it's great practice and helps them grow in terms of arting, in my opinion. Another part is because it will help curb some the drama that surrounds the UGC. (Not all of it, such as people's original designs getting stolen.)

    The other part is because I feel really bad for talented people who will make these really, really well-done designs that actually took time, and a lot of their own imagination and effort AND for some reason, they'll only have a few sales versus someone who ripped a design from some anime, claims it as their own work, and earns 30+ sales. It is completely unfair in my opinion. I feel this way, even if the anime ripped design is of high quality too.

    Personally, I was hoping for a lot of stylish and varied options in the design shop because I wanted to support other players/designers for their creativity and quality work, but unfortunately, it's mostly swamped with anime outfit clones which is a huge disappointment for me personally.

    While I am firm in my beliefs, I understand that this is an anime game and people love to cosplay, even in game, so I understand folks wanting these types of designs in game, but I don't think it should be players selling it, if that makes sense. That's my two cents.

    As an artist myself, I certainly do agree with a lot of what you have said here. It's a pretty cut-throat business, where if you are unwilling to essentially break copyright laws, you will typically be an obscure artist. You are far more likely to gain a following by doing fan art than doing your own work.

    I also think a lot of people overestimate how much work it takes to copy something. My best looking art is always fanart because all the legwork was done by someone else (and that is even coming up with my own pose, camera angle, background, color choice, etc). It's easy to copy. It's hard to create. It takes a lot more time and effort to come up with something that is original and looks good. Most beginner artists can copy, and is in fact how much artists start off. Drawing something that already exists line for line. Not even coming up with their own poses or anything. That is essentially what a lot of these UGC are. Pretty much direct copies. It takes very little effort to do.
  • Someone made over 200k merits ripping off my work

    Ginsama wrote: »
    Pizzaaa wrote: »
    I'm sorry to say, but this discussion is getting way too much off hand, if you can't actually behave I will have to lock this thread.

    Can you speak against the harassment Dochi is experiencing in this thread? Please?

    If it's about people calling out against the copyrighted material, that isn't harassment. Being aggressive toward him and calling him a thief would be harassment. With that said, I do think some of the posts could absolutely be called out as harassment, but on both sides. But if you consider any of my posts for example, as harassment, it really isn't.

    But anyway, I am going to create another topic so we can move on from this thread and not be called trolls constantly, and then let this thread die out like it should.
  • Someone made over 200k merits ripping off my work

    Bluclue wrote: »
    Majority of the people who diverge topics regarding UGC rips or speak up for UGC rippers are Rippers themselves or are related to them. They are mostly trolls. I can guarantee that fact.

    That is quite a bold claim in and of itself. You are making yourself look like a hypocrite by accusing others of something you don't even know is true, and that is just as off topic as what we are talking about. Also, in case you are wondering, I don't have any UGC up, and I am not speaking up for UGC rippers, nor am I related to anyone who is a UGC ripper, and I am, certainly not a troll. Just a person with an opinion and presenting information.

    Now if you were not talking to me, then fine. But no one else here was sticking up for any rippers, so your comment is just entirely out of bounds, to be frank.
  • Someone made over 200k merits ripping off my work

    Ginsama wrote: »
    Lets make it clear

    Ripping the textures from the game and applying them to a ugc template: No go

    Spending the time to personally paint the outfit onto a template while looking at a reference sheet: Good to go.

    Copyright laws are a bit more complicated than that. Copying it in any fashion even if by hand is still against copyright. Even if Nexon allows it, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't against copyright and I think that is a very important distinction to make here. Technically speaking, even fanart is against copyright when looking at it in the most legal sense. The only reason companies don't go after people for drawing fanart is because it would hurt their bottomline. They would only anger their fans for something that isn't really harming them and is even probably benefiting them.

    Cosplay, on the other hand, you can get away with it, because there are laws in place that makes it impossible to copyright clothing designs and such because clothing is considered as an essential item for hoomans. XD This however, doesn't always necessarily hold true when it comes to character designs and creating cosplay. There have been some cases where companies have sued, to name one, Disney.

    Last but not least, this isn't cosplay anyway. It seems like a lot of people are getting confused. The copyright law that protects clothing doesn't work on digital clothing. Meaning UGC in MapleStory 2, is fully under the same laws of copyright as artwork. Meaning if you are selling designs of characters from another company, it is 100% without a doubt against copyright.

    Literally a UA uniform passing the grade from an official channel. I'm iffy of the use of the UA letters however.
    Yes, the UA uniform, in my opinion, is quite bizarre. I am honestly shocked they are allowing this because it is indeed against copyright. I think it's hilarious how many people bring up how clothing gets away with it, like as if what we are talking about is clothing. No, we are talking about digital in-game items in the shape of clothing. It's not actual clothing.

    But if Nexon says it's ok, it means they will be taking the responsibility. So I guess it doesn't matter.

    ON a basic level, most artists take a blank image and create their work from it. Some may trace elements or use the eyedropper tool to properly match colors or structures. Some people may take blatant queues from other artists in their style. / The work involved is the intellectual property/. Ok sure, a tracer might be the scum of the art community, but at the same time, if someone is doing more than just tracing, like say, making a stencil out of a copyrighted image that they then spray on a canvas, that is sufficient removal from the source material to divorce the original copyright.
    It might interest you to know many fan artists have been sued before for drawing copyrighted characters and selling prints and such. In order to be safe, your art needs to be quite a bit transformative. That usually means like if I was drawing Batman and selling prints, it would need to be drawn in a fairly different style to the point that it's really only referencing the character and isn't actually copying it.
    Sailor moon tiara? She don't own the crescent moon. Just call it the Goddess's Gildpiece and you're fine

    You really want Deku cosplay shoes? Red shoes with white soles aren't owned by anyone. Call em Heroic Red Sneakers
    What makes these things ok, however, is that the designs of the items you are mentioning are so simplistic that without the name, you couldn't necessarily pinpoint it to any series in particular. In other words, these items are too generic for a company to go after a person for copyright infringement. But if someone let's say copied the entire sailor moon outfit and called it something entirely different, that would still be copyright infringement, cause while the tiara alone is something generic, it all together isn't. There would be absolutely no mistake that it's an outfit from sailor moon.
    The douchebag who makes Sora's shoes and calls them Kingdom Hearts Shoes? A lovely person I'm sure, probably spent a lot of time on them, but at the end of the day guilty of a crime of /using a copyrighted name/.
    Names are not copyrighted. Things like names and words are trademarked. I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you don't even know that tells me you don't know as much as you seem to think about copyright.
    the purpose and character of your use- A case would need to prove sufficient lack of transformative expression
    the nature of the copyrighted work- A Judge would consider the source of the copyright in question in order to determine it's similarities and reasonable expectations toward someone using that work in their own products.
    the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - The judge would consider which portion of the work is original and which part is derivative.(Tracing vs handdrawn, and how much of each applies to the original work.)

    Trust me when I say this, something being hand drawn isn't going to make a case for copyright any better. Because hand drawing something is still in essence copying. If I had hand drawn a Pikachu poster and was selling it, I absolutely could still be sued and Nintendo would almost certainly win because I do not own the rights to redraw Pikachu and sell it as merchandise. That is what it means to have a copyright on something. Only Nintendo has the right to copy and reproduce it. Now, in order for something to fall under transformative, to give an example ... drawing a realistic Pikachu. As if what it would look like if it was a real animal in real life. I know quite a few artists who do this sort of thing. When you look at these drawings, while you can tell it's meant to be a pokemon, it's extremely different and often even terrifying if I am being honest lol. That is why they can get away with it because it's just so different.
    MY official stance is that Nexon won't take any action on part of a copyright holder unless blatant or acted upon by said party. This is because legal fees are a significant portion of the case. The path of least resistance is to ignore the issue until someone complains and then remove the work as instructed... but that is also why the GM's exist in part , to judge the design shop items and act accordingly to takedown requests.

    This is pretty much where I agree with you. Personally, I doubt any company is going to come around here and actually try and sue. It's just not worth it in the end. And if someone did happen to try, that is when Nexon would just remove the UGC in violation and move on.

    But from what I understand of copyright laws, a lot of stuff in the UGC shop is most certainly against copyright, and so is this outfit. But at the end of the day, it doesn't seem to matter. But people will continue to complain as long as things remain the same. And the bigger an issue theft becomes the more these copyright issues will be pointed out as well. They just sort of go hand in hand. In my opinion, neither should be allowed.

    Edit: Also, the whole off topic thing is none sense. It's on topic because it's an important factor in the whole theft and copyright mess that is UGC. And if it was to remain "on topic" then the thread would just die anyway because there is nothing left to discuss and it's not like this thread out of the 100s that probably exist is going to make any sort of difference until they actually do something about it.
  • 1 Million Players Event Unfair

    Facts are that you were aware that you needed to hit cap to receive these awards. Another fact is that you decided not to grind towards that cap in favor of taking it slow and going at your pace. You clearly valued the latter over the merets and chose to sacrifice the event reward to "enjoy the game".

    The only ones I actually sympathize with are the ones who joined maybe a day before the deadline. Twelve days was a hell of a lot of time to hit cap and can easily be done in the span of a day on a fresh character. If you really wanted the 500 merets and other rewards for cap, you would've done it. Clearly that wasn't the case. You knowingly made your decision and then decided to make a thread complaining about how it was unfair? Lol.
    Sprouti wrote: »
    Yeah, I have 150 exploration stars, mastery of music, intermediate fishing, and level 5 on all life skills because I don’t play. My initial point still stands, and some of you really need to evaluate the way you talk to people. Not everyone is the same or plays the same. Playing Maple is all I’ve really been doing in my free time lately. I’m just enjoying different aspects of the game. I don’t see why that’s so hard to believe or why people feel the need to insult me.

    All you've said this whole thread is that you knowingly play Maple in a way that makes you ineligible of getting the prize within the time frame. You made no effort to change the way you play to get the prize, so you didn't get the prize. You only have yourself to blame.

    If you have an issue with the way events are structured, aim them towards future events rather than complaining about an event that you were fully knowledgeable on.

    What makes it unfair is you are being told to do something that you don't want to just so you can participate in the celebration that literally has nothing to do with what they are telling you to do. Even though you are also a part of the reason why the celebration event is taking place, yet you don't get to participate cause you play differently.

    That's what makes it unfair. My decision to not bother doesn't change that. Why should I have to change the way I play just to be a part of the game? That is literally the unfair part.

    I think it's important to understand that something can be unfair even if a person decides to not bother with it. It's so sad these sort of things need to be explained to some people.

    Edit: Course fairness is pretty subjective anyway. So why even bother trying to argue with people who don't see it as fair? Not like it's going to get you anywhere.