Hey guys! So there's this program called "Pokemon Essentials" which allows fans to make Pokemon fan games easily. Some of the more popular ones you may already know of such as Pokemon Reborn and Pokemon Uranium.

I've noticed that you can freely change out the assets in any game made with this tool. Such as the battler sprites. So I've been making a global mod that works with any of these games which is just a bunch of sprite replacements. Currently it's just one of those for my eyes only things. So no problems.

I have no idea how copyright and the works well... works. So I thought I'd ask you guys about it. Is this allowed to be released at all? Or will it forever remain mine and mine alone?

99% of the art I've been using is just images found off of e621 and the like. I heavily edit the images by cropping them and shrinking them down to size, sometimes even adding to an image to fill out parts that were cut off of the character in question or just tweaking it to my liking. I've even coloured some images. (btw am I allowed to upload somebodies sketches that I coloured?)

If I were to release this, it would be entirely free.

So basically do I need to...
Get permission from each artist on the image in question?
Make a list of credits as well as linking to each artist?
Does none of this matter cause it's just a mod?
Or is this something that'll never see the light of day?

Thanks for your time!

I do not suggest using assets you do not own, nor assets that can be traced back (or discovered) to those you do not own (bases that are paid, tracing, etc.), but I have no experience to actually provide advice! I can suggest you to contact Ratte or Theta on chat, as she seems to be experienced with this stuff.

i would say to add credits & links at the very least or you'll likely get at least some artists complaining about their work being used without permission or dare i say, stolen.

and you say "mod" which has me confused. if this program is used to make mods for a game then which game is it for exactly? if you mean ROMs like for emulation then it's a romhack, not a mod.

calling something like a romhack a mod is just confusing.

*checking the wiki for this* ...oh, ok. i see now. it's not a mod, it's simply a bunch of assets used with RPG Maker XP. so what your really making is a RPG Maker game.

Pokemon Essentials Wiki: Home of the Pokémon Game Project for RPG Maker XP

Siral Exan
I'm not really worried about being traced back or discovered as I already stated that their not mine. I'm not claiming any of it to be mine including the things I've coloured and edited. Just because I coloured something I still think it belongs to the original artist.

Uh, not sure how the irc chat thing works but If I get desperate I'll look into it. ;p

treos
So are you saying play it super safe with links and credits and it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission? Basically I really don't wanna attempt to contact roughly 2000 people and ask permission so if I can avoid that you bet I will. I'm totally fine with people requesting that I remove their work though.

Also I'm not really creating an Rpg Maker game either. It's more of a modification of any game made with that program. It can be applied to anything on this list. http://pokemonessentials.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_fangames

Ask for permission like you should have a long time ago. You are still using their work, just saying "lol assets ain't mine fam" doesn't do anyone any favors.

So it's just a flat out no go even if it's a mod type of thing huh? Bummer.
Thanks for the replies. Google was really letting me down for the specific question.

Elesis said:
So it's just a flat out no go even if it's a mod type of thing huh? Bummer.
Thanks for the replies. Google was really letting me down for the specific question.

Well it depends. Read the ToS and eula and thats where you should get your info from.

GDelscribe said:
Well it depends. Read the ToS and eula and thats where you should get your info from.

ah yes, the 2 least read documents in the history of...pretty much anything really. still, you've got a good point.

Always credit the original creators when you are using their content. Getting permission is even better.

Creating direct derivative works from artwork of other people requires their express permission if you want to do it right. Mainly if you want to avoid a bunch of legal issues and/or C&D letters. What you're doing is a copyright violation no matter how you flip it. As such get permission first or keep it private.

(U.S. law as I understand it; I'm not a lawyer and I don't know about international or other nations)

With the very specific exceptions of fair uses, you must have a license (permission) from the proper owner of intellectual property (here copyright, trademark) in order to legally publish work deriving that IP to any third party. The graphics that you are using bear associated copyrights while names and other branding, such as the word "Pokémon", are trademarks.

You will not yet be committing an IP violation if you keep the derivative work to yourself or if the only person who sees a given derivative work is the person whose work you're deriving, e.g. you're showing them the work so they can decide whether to allow it.

Note that, technically, each artist you ask for permission must see only their own work in any screenshots you send, not anybody else's, or you're still showing it to a third party. You should still be honest in text with the general scope of IPs you're combining together, though, i.e. "I'm using lots of graphics from several artists gathered through e621 and..."

Common misconceptions

• It makes absolutely no legal difference whether or not you make money from an IP violation - it matters whether the owner's business & image are affected. A free release can even work against you, example: What sane person would pay full price for Metroid II on Virtual Console when the much-improved AM2R is free? This still applies when the original work is free because if your use misrepresents the owner it may affect their future projects and public image in general.

• Stating the proper owner of IP may help to appease the owner(s), but has no bearing legally; admitting that you are committing an infringement, or claiming that it was not "intended", does not change that an infringement was committed.

• Your use does not become fair just because you say it is.

• Even when your use is fair, that does not stop the IP owner from filing a DMCA or suing you. It only means you might win the resulting court case if you sufficiently demonstrate that your use is fair... which is very unlikely if you piss off a big company like Nintendo or Disney whose legal team is going to be a lot better than yours, so keep cautious!

FibS, I'm tired so I might be missing something, but your explanation seems pretty sufficient except for one thing.

Fair Use is one exception that comes in handy, but it's also worth remembering that there are creative commons works, which have varying licenses stating what you may use them for.

Actually, interestingly, there are creative commons licenses which require that the resulting work not be monetized, which is one case in which making money can determine whether or not a use is legal or not.

It's also worth mentioning that while monetization is not a determining factor, it can still be a factor which is looked at and has an impact on the final ruling of the court. To put it another way, not making money doesn't mean that your usage is fair, but making money on an already edge case might tip the scales.