was wondering where the 'thin red line' gets drawn with some intellectual property issues.
Some guy draws a weapon concept in 2d. Then he leaves the team (lets say disgruntled...). A model is then made (based off the 2d concept) and implemented into the game.
Does this mean that he (the 2D artist) could argue that the 3D model is a result of his IP being used, and ask that the 3D model be abolished from the project? (..assuming he left taking his IP with him, such as the sketches)
The way I see it... the 2D art is the 2D art... it is physical and on paper (or scanned & digital). The scanned image is not used. The physical piece of paper is not used. But new IP is created using them as reference.
This is what I meant by it being 'thin red line'.
Just say years ago I drew a fat plumber wearing red and blue overalls with a big M on his cap. ...I'd be mighty pissed off if I saw him as Nintendo's mascot (thats if I had previously showed it to the Nintendo artists) without being offered anything. So where would I stand if I said "Delete your digital versions of Mario.. because I made the original sketch that you based him off."
...in that case, the 2d sketch has become a primary marketable icon for a company, but in the 1st case, its just a weapon that has no major or defining role in the game....
But both are IP and both are 2d sketches.
Basically... I'm interested in knowing how things like this are dealt with. What issues are raised when concept art moves over to digital assests and when is somethign defined as "important".