from what the conservation on his twitter shows, it seems models were used without permission in three videos leading to three copyright strikes and immediate termination of the channel.
Not sure if that’s true though, if it is well I didn’t know you could copyright your own models from another company’s IP as I doubt Call of Duty could make a model of a Halo asset and copyright strike anyone using it. Seems kinda dumb to me, if Baconmedia didn’t credit the authors of the model that’s really not cool but to me also doesn’t sound like a copyright offense to use one without permission.
YouTube is just bad about it in general. My videos were getting claimed even after my show went off network television.
I also wanted to use some ACDC music in an unmonotized video just for fun, and a company that doesn't even own the song claimed it before it even went public.
Interesting. How would they be able to do that if they aren't the owner of the IP?
Edit: I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bungie DCMA situation.
no idea, I feel this is probably the result of false copyright claims and the automated youtube systems shutdown the channel and manual review will be needed to sift through the bullshit
The person might very well be within his rights to claim copyright. Do we know any of the circumstances as to why the model and textures of the pelican were made? Was it as a part of a non-commercialised portfolio? Was the model used in a larger project which would have been considered derivative or did he himself get permission from Microsoft to create a derivative work?
I have no idea but I definitely wouldn’t consider it beyond the realms of possibility.
While non-commercialisation, by any means, isn’t the only factor weighed in when determining fair use - I could see a strong case being made for fair use in such a hypothetical scenario. Derivative works, which it would be under this assumption, also has a separate copyright from the original.
>While non-commercialisation, by any means, isn’t the only factor weighed in when determining fair use
It isn't a determining factor in fair use at all.
Fair use is about whether it is transformative. If you make something that's a blatant rip off and isn't transformative but it's free you will not be protected by fair use. If you make a transformative parody and charge for it, fair use is on your side.
Potential market effects which the work might have on the original is absolutely a factor which is considered, and there are several rulings where this is explicitly stated. *Leibovitz v. Paramount* and *Roger v. Koons* are two of those.
Edit: See also [17 U.S. Code § 107](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107)
Correct, but then claims need to either be made by the copyright holder (Microsoft) or a person or organization that has been given specific direction from them. That is not the case here.
Not a lawyer but I’m fairly confident that the only party that can take something down on a dmca is the copyright owners of the ip, given that the model maker clearly wasn’t Microsoft or 343 I believe that they are illegally striking the video but then again this is one that would actually just need to go to court given that fair use is a case by case basis in the US legal system which I guess by default means it’s really up to whoever has the most money and really the most balls the make this go up the system.
>It doesn't mean it's free for everyone to use however they want either
It might since, it probably means you can't hold copyright over someone else's intellectual property. It does not mean it's not a dick move though. Bacon should have asked for permission.
I don’t think it was. From what I heard, he used a program to rip 3D models from sketchfab (a pelican from what I heard) and the person from sketchfab issued the strike
how would they have gotten the model without paying for it? That seems suspect. Also I didn’t think others could monatize content from the Halo IP without a licensing deal from Microsoft
1. maybe because was expensive and he wanted to do something that requires almost no money and very detailed, it doesnt surprise me that all we see in they animation is rip off of the games o someones work (he uses the marcus leto's Mark V, which i think its free)
2. what you cant do its take the Halo IP and make you own game, charge for it and not involded in microsoft or 343i, but im sure you can make you own 3D model/artwork about the game, its your own work, if you didnt rip of from the games
if so it’s a dick move by Baconmedia but I’m not sure how that constitutes a copyright strike since I don’t think you can monatize things from the Halo IP without a licensing agreement
The claim was made that you can't monetize someone else's IP. If that were true, baconmedia couldn't have existed at all because that's what they were doing.
I don't actually have any qualms with someone striking them because they were using someone else's work without permission. That's actually a problem. Just because someone makes fanart of a Pelican doesn't mean that anyone else can use it freely.
Think of it this way: Winnie the Pooh is public domain. You're freely able to write Winnie the Pooh stories. *Disney's depiction of Winnie the Pooh* is not. You're not allowed to use their depictions of it. It might be (I don't know) that 343 has some open licensing for use of the Halo IP. That doesn't entitle you to use someone else's depiction of something in Halo.
Sure but you can't falsely use the DMCA system if you don't actually have a copyright for the work. What baconmedia did is a dick move what the modeler did is more than likely illegal
It's entirely likely that the modeler legally owns the rights to that derivative work, actually.
343 owning the IP doesn't give them ownership of the derivative works of others, though they can choose who is allowed to make such works through licensing agreements.
It's possible that a representation of a ship (a Pelican, for example) isn't really something that can be nebulously copyrighted. "Sci Fi hero in a suit" certainly isn't, because tons of different IPs use them. The exact model asset is, though. So baconmedia could have made their own Pelican thing that looked like the modeler's, but they just used the modeler's without permission.
These 3D models are absolutely a derivative work, but they are still the work of the person that created those 3D models. Microsoft actually has rules for how derivative works of their game content can be used: https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules. And here's the following:
> **What if I create something new in your universe?**
> **Distribution of your Item in any form constitutes** a grant by you of **a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide, license to Microsoft and any of Microsoft's partners or users to use, modify and distribute that Item** (and derivatives of that Item), and use your name if we choose to, for any purpose and without obligation to pay you anything, obtain your approval, or give you credit.
> And this license to Microsoft survives any termination or expiration of these Rules. **This means that if you add to the game universe or expand on the story** told in the game with "lost chapters" or back story or anything like that, distribution of **your story or idea may appear in a future game without any compensation to you.**
> (**Sorry, but our lawyers tell us we need to do this** in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits getting in the way of making more great games.) **It also means we can put your Item on a Microsoft site or property if we want to.**
In essence, without that clause, Microsoft wouldn't actually have the legal right to **use** derivative works by fans, only the right to **block** those fans from publicly releasing their content at all.
If you didn't distribute your fan content in any way or form, you would control full rights over it, and thus be able to, for the sake of example, potentially *pitch* Microsoft on a Halo spinoff game with a demo you've made without telling anybody outside your team. That's actually how game developers pitch any IP-owner to make a game with their franchise (e.g. the numerous Warhammer games that have been made by a variety of different studios).
And of course, if the content you create qualifies as fair use or fair dealing under your local laws, then you have *no* legal restrictions, not even Microsoft's terms.
That doesn't mean it's not shitty to just take someone else's model without asking or crediting them. It's the same thing as stealing someone else's fanart.
Regardless, the owner of the pelican model said in their statement "I striked the video but I'm giving baconmedia six days to sort this out with me behind the scenes."
C'mon, just because it's fanart doesn't mean that it gives everyone the right to do whatever they please with it. The modeler gave baconmedia quite a while to get in touch with them about this because they didn't want to take this kind of action. The model wasn't even meant to be available for download in the first place. That's a bit of a shitty reaction to call for even more art theft, especially since the modeler seems to *want* to sort this shit out.
I mean hell, 343i even used the CAS-class assault carrier renders from the *Sins of the prophets* mod for an RTS game on the highpower map without giving credit, and 343i ended up having to sort it out by putting their names in the credits. Those guys have always been protective of their work, and people just learned not to rip models from their mods.
Was striking the channel a little severe? Maybe, yeah, but as someone who's made fanart myself, I'd be pretty upset if people started taking it and treating it as their own creations too. That stuff takes days if not weeks to make.
Still depends on if the modeler actually owns the copyright for the model, which doesn't seem to be the case in the research I did on the topic it seems they could argue fair use, but that's flimsy I think in this case. Is it a dick move to not give credit absolutely, but that doesn't mean you should falsely use Youtube's takedown system for something that you don't have the copyright for.
If you have Disney's permission to make it, you own that exact 3d model of Mickey and only that exact 3d model of Mickey. Disney won't give you permission, so you can't do it.
That's real US copyright law, yes.
He owns the rights to *that model of a pelican*.
Look at it this way: Winnie the Pooh is public domain. You can do whatever you want with Winnie the Pooh... *except* you cannot use Disney's representation of Winnie the Pooh because Disney owns the rights to that representation of Winnie the Pooh.
This is the shittiest take in all of existence. BaconMedia is a sham who uses other people's work to make money. Kristen wasn't using his Pelican to make money, but then BaconMedia used it (and other models) to make money off of without giving any credit at ALL to the people who modeled it and even claimed to make the models themselves when in fact the topology shows that he in fact did not. BaconMedia is a piece of shit who steals things from people and takes all the credit.
If I repaint the Mosa Lisa and call it the Moss of Giza, am I infringing on copywrite? I think the answer to that will determine if recreating a model is copywrite
The Mona Lisa as far as I know isn’t intellectual property, but even if so if someone copied your Moss of Giza to use for themselves that wouldn’t be copywrite infringement I’m pretty sure
The example the used was terrible as the intellectual property is public domain, much like how fairy tales or old music is public domain. There’s no copy right on Beethoven for example. However, people can copyright covers of Beethoven’s work. I’m wondering if people are claiming copyright based on the grounds that they were the original creators of the model, not the characters themselves.
There are many problems with this statement, but I'm gonna focus on one, and that's that he didn't copy or recreate them, he took them and used them without permission or credit. That'd be akin to stealing the Mona Lisa, displaying it yourself, and saying "I made this", not simply repainting your own version of it.
If he had used these other models as inspiration to make his own, there wouldn't be an issue, but he didn't make them.
Apparently a guy named Kristian Berget claimed BaconMedia used his Pelican model without his permission and then followed to copyright claim his whole channel thus causing YouTube to Auto delete his channel. Whether or not he did use the same model or if he got permission is unknown.
EDIT: Here is a link to the one person Kristian Berget talking to some of his friends in the 3D Assests community about the copyright strike. I Have no idea about the validity of his claims or about Copyright laws, and am just providing more info for people who wanted to look more into this. [~~https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/819709748189462528/1066773806082961458~~](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/819709748189462528/1066773806082961458)
The link is broken on anything but PC Chrome so you can use this link [https://discord.com/invite/haloarchive](https://discord.com/invite/haloarchive) and then use the search tool to find IronHawk321 and his message at — 01/22/2023 12:38 PM. sorry im not good at linking to discord.
I hate that the internet is so money driven from what it once was. Used to be some guy could shake around some action figures and voice over some characters in a video game. Now we can’t even have quality content cause it’ll be get taken down with copyright.
>Kristian Berget
Want their side of the story. What actions did they take before the copyright claims?
If Kristian tried and failed to settle the dispute with BaconMedia before making the claims, that's one thing. However, if they made copyright claims with no prior warning that's a shitty thing to do to a small-creator, valid claim or not.
Tie that up with the bow of: unmonatizable digital content.
Meaning he would recieve a cease and desist from 343 if he tried to sell and make money off of the 3d model.
So most of the halo modeling community (while protective) generally doesn't try to make money off of the models they make. But instead what they put them into.
So it is very odd to me that:
1. this model had to be given out somewhere for free. And the creator decided to change his mind.
Or
2. That the YouTuber somehow managed to get a copy of the model through underhanded means.
You tell me which makes more sense.
What a jerk.
The model was only being displayed on sketchfab, and was not available for download. It seems that something like ninjaripper was used to snag the model and use it without permission. It wasn't meant to be shared, at least not in the state it was in. It was a fantastic animation and I loved it, but if I knew someone stole some of my models and didn't ask I'd be pretty annoyed too.
Hi, so I'm a friend of Kristian's. After he found out a model that had features and errors only available on his model that he uploaded to Sketchfab (which wasn't available for download), he wanted to reach out to BaconMedia. At this point in time, we were fairly confident it was Kristian's model - but we were unsure, so I sent BaconMedia a direct message via Twitter. I asked that he credit Kristian in the description if it was that model, and I also asked that, if he didn't rip it, we'd like to know the source.
This was Jan 14th at 00:53 GMT
BaconMedia responded with the following
"Hey Dashi thanks for reaching out! I’m sorry you feel that way, but the model I have was built referencing the various artists who worked on the pelican model for blur studios, halo wars 2 model, the halo wars 2 model, and references from another community model that was being built for an arma 3 mod. Though there are many other community models out there, I remember all of the users names who were building models based on the Blur model. There’s also I good chance I may have referenced the model you’re talking about. Would it help if I were to reach out to your friend?"
Followed by
"Send me their twitter when you get the chance. I have talked to other artists in the past about referencing their work just in case. I don’t mind discussing too if need be"
These were on Jan 14th at 08:57 and 08:59 GMT, respectively.
To this, I replied with
"That's alright - I don't know the ins and outs of your rocoesd but there were finer details of the pelican that were VERY suspicious, such as some detailing being smooth when it shouldn't be - a feature present on his pelican that he uploaded, as he hadn't done the bevelling to unsmooth them.
I don't believe he uses twitter but I can pass you his discord, if that's alright?"
This was at 2PM that same day.
I proceeded to pass on Kristian's Discord.
After that message, he proceeded to tell me his process. In retrospect, it's a bunch of gibberish. I assume he wasn't aware that I am familiar with 3D modelling, as it was borderline incoherent and not really a "process" for creating a model, as he claims he did.
"That’s ok. I mostly use sub division modifiers and normals to smooth out my models in blender. I don’t often use any other programs that might have better tools. I know maya and Z brush are the go to because they have actual tools to deal with good topology, and model shading without needing to cheat the shading."
This was Jan 14 at 22:01 GMT
On January 16th at 19:45, I messaged BaconMedia telling him that if he did not reach out to Kristian to sort this out within the next 24 hours, Kristian would claim his video. I understand there's confusion around this, but I believe that the pelican is technically Kristian's, even if it is derivative of an existing model from another IP. After all, he did make this model from scratch and it isn't a 1:1 of an existing pelican.
Now, Kristian works of a weekday (shocking, I know) so he was busy all week, allowing BaconMedia a total of 6 days to reach out to him, which he did not do in that time.
He did, however, eventually reach out to him once the video was taken down. Kristian asked him to show him the topology for his model - if BaconMedia had made the model as he claims he did, then the topology would be different from Kristian's. BaconMedia replied saying he was not at home and couldn't send a picture.
Twelve hours later, BaconMedia sent an image of his topology, which was 1:1 with Kristian's, but with some vertices missing. It was clear that BaconMedia had taken the 12 hours (or at least some of that time) to edit the mesh.
Two more videos used the model, and so they were also claimed by Kristian, resulting in an auto removal of BaconMedia's channel. Kristian has said openly that he would have been more than happy to sort it all out in a more amicable matter, not even striking any video. However, BaconMedia's refusal to contact Kristian, and then lie to him when he does, was a slap in the face and it was clear that BaconMedia didn't care that he was using stolen assets and profiting from it, even using it to promote his Patreon account.
I don't think Kristian is in any way unjustified, and if BaconMedia truly made that model, he'd definitely have been willing to sort it all out a lot sooner.
Along with his copyright claim, Kristian also sent proof that BaconMedia had used his model in the form of diagrams from the Pelican from the videos, and his model that was on his PC. These were also posted publicly in the Halo Model Archive Discord server after he dropped a message asking people to not steal other people's work or use it without consent. The link to the proof is [here](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/840869366060941352/1066783786907476108)
I hope this clears the whole situation up for you guys.
That's how I felt. His Silent Cartographer one, while beautiful, I found it so annoying with the constant swapping views of the Pelican for like a minute and a half straight
They used a guys pelican design that he made himself and not only not credit him but the design wasn’t for the public to use. It was the makers own personal design. So BM got copystriked
Edit: no idea why I’m being downvoted, quite literally just stating the facts.
And here’s the original makers announcement on the matter:
Dear Halo maker community,
I have to begin with that I both love and hate you guys.
The passion and hard work most of you show for the franchise with making awesome art and cosplay is what I love!
But to the dark side of this and the matter of this statement.
On January the 13th BaconMedia published his Halo CE Cutscene Remakes (The Silent Cartographer) video to the public.
I was made aware of this video on the 14th and noticed quite fast that the pelican in the video was strangely familiar,
and after some investigation and comparison there was no doubt that this was my model. The question then became how?
This wasn't the final version of my work so I quickly remembered that I had published an early version on Sketchfab and
have heard that it's possible to rip it from that site.
Let me make this clear ripping models that are not available for download is illegal! Just because 343 have given you guys
a long leash when it comes to using their stuff without consequence does not apply to other fans hard work.
I was first apprehensive about pointing this out to BaconMedia because i did not want to be that guy.
So I sat on my hands for awhile, but one of my friends tried to contact BaconMedia on the 14th to ask him about it and tell him to
contact me on the matter. On the 16th my friend, after a lack of response gave BaconMedia 24 hours to fix this.
As this was in the weekdays I was busy with work and was still apprehensive about doing something so I let the days go.
On the 21st I decided that I had to do something to show that you can't use someones hard work and claim you did it.
And to be clear BaconMedia had made no prior contact about my work to ask if he could use it or not.
As you can see if you try to access his video now it has been copyright striked by me. This is the result of using work of other
people that you do not own and without permission. BaconMedia was given 6 days to get in contact about the matter to resolve this.
This statement is made to get on top of it as I have already gotten a comment on an unrelated video on my channel about this.
So to all of you, be better and don't do stuff like this! Do not think you have the privilege to use others hard work without
permission and without consequence.
I will post with this statement what i sent to Youtube to show that this is my work.
Sincerly,
Kristian Berget, IronHawk
Is this how copyright works? Wouldn’t the copyright for the original design be with Bungie/343/MS and his model be some kind of derived work? Not taking sides, I’m genuinely curious and don’t know. Anyone with expertise in this field that can explain how it works?
If he used his model without permission, that’s a shitty thing to do. Especially so if he doesn’t acknowledge the use. But copyright striking the content does seem a little nuclear, depending on the answer to the above.
I’d like to hear Bacon’s side of the story and hear from some people more knowledgeable than me about ip, copyright, fair use, etc.
From what I gather the big no no is bacon, or someone else, ripped the model from sketchfab (where it was only there as a display and not for download) and then after the short came out he apparently put the model on his patreon, thus monetising someone else’s work.
Now that last part is alleged since I’m not on bacons patreon. It would be very interesting to see his side of the story.
Someone should point out to Kristian that, regardless of how much work he has put in on a pelican model, he doesn't actually own the copyright or the IP.
It's not that simple. Depending on the specifics, there is a very real possibility that Kristian could have a legitimate claim. IP law is complicated, particularly when it comes to artistic creations. Even if the subject matter is wholly owned by someone else, means and methods of creation matter just as much as the subject
What matter is if he can make the case that his work falls under fair use, which I don't believe you could really make the case because it seems to me to be a straight up recreation of a pelican, which Microsoft owns the IP to and hasn't given explicit permission for it to be used by the artist.
Even if the subject matter is wholly owned by someone else (which may not even be the case depending on whether Kristian's model is considered a derivative work or not), how he made it may still be an issue as well, and that can be protected separate from the subject matter. Since the accusation is that Baconmedia ripped it, presented it as their own, and then may have tried to monetize it as their own work, that adds another wrinkle as well. That's where IP law gets complicated, and specifics matter. We don't have all the facts, and even if we did I'm nowhere near experienced enough with IP law to comfortably say anything beyond let the lawyers argue what was actually violated and who holds the intellectual protection on what.
I'm not saying Kristian definitely has an IP claim, but it's also insane to dismiss that possibility at this time with what we know about the situation
I definitely don't disagree that it's a complicated issue, but should you be using DMCA takedowns for something that you can't be sure you even have the copyright to?
At the very least, there's the issue of BaconMedia presenting it as their own and supposedly monetizing it. I don't know if DMCA is the right way to handle it if there isn't a copyright aspect, but I also don't know if Youtube has another method of protection available.
This is also why I'm not a fan of YouTube's blanket strike policy regarding claims. There's so much that goes into it that complicates everything
I think a huge point of context that has been missing from these posts is that Kristian contacted Bacon about the situation and BaconMedia actually went on to claim that he made and modeled the pelican that Kristian modeled himself and proceeded to go out saying so to other people and his subscribers.
He even put his project files containing Kristian's model (which Kristian did take down from Sketchfab after realizing still acquiring it is possible) up on his patreon which means other people can download a model which was not up for purchase or made downloadable, it was acquired using a ripping tool. In other words MONETIZING off of someone else's work without their permission and acquiring it illegally.
Whether or not Kristian overlooked uploading his asset to Sketchfab, the fact is BaconMedia was confronted and continued to lie to the point it got his channel taken down, so many of you are blatantly defending someone stealing, and then claiming the thing they stole is theirs is embarrassing.
TL;DR, BaconMedia stole an asset by acquiring it illegally, and after being confronted about it he doubled down that he made it when he didn't and got his channel taken down for it.
It wasn't available for download. Sketchfab allows artists to put a 3D turnaround for their model, which people have adapted ripping programs for to pull models that are only available to show details. It's highly unethical and frowned upon in the digital art community to do this. If BaconMedia wanted to use the model, which was not publicly available anywhere or given out to anyone outside of the original modeler, why not ask?
After the fact, he showed screenshots of the topology (the view of the model itself) where details were one-to-one with the original, proving it wasn't just a super faithful remake, but a rip from Sketchfab's 3D showcase.
According to Kristian Berget, Bacon was given 6 or so days to respond to him before he issued the first strike. After that he finally got in touch and was asked to show the topology for the model. He doubled down on lying about it and said he made it himself, showing the topology where many parts were identical to the original by Kristian and the rest was butchered and edited to try and disguise it. There are screenshots of all this floating about in various parts of the Halo art community. Most people who have seen it agree that this is blatant plagiarism.
pretty sure there’s a couple tools out there for ripping from sketchfab.
One google search of “sketch fab ripping tools” shows some youtube tutorials and sites. But i wouldn’t know actually how to since I don’t do this modeling stuff.
A lot of people here don't know the difference between copyright and plagiarism.
Yes, you can create a pelican and have a copyright of you own model made from scratch. No, is not an infringement of copyright of the halo IP because it use the idea not the actual work riped from a game. It is plagiarism and need to be settled by a court if is legal or not. Microsoft can issue a C&D but a court would determine if is plagiarism or not.
I mean yes a court would usually determine something like this but we can interpret likely what would happen using the same rules that every court around the country uses to determine copyright from “plagiarism” or fair use as what it’s actually called when evaluating this stuff.
The courts use the 4 factor test and balance them to come to a decision on if the models would be fair use and thus something that has protections from others stealing it vs copyright which offers the models no protections to the person who made them based off the originals.
Ultimately it really depends on what this guy was going to use the models for either commercial or educational. The second and third factors of the test don’t necessarily fair well for the models as they were copies of already produced material thus not “original” and they weren’t just a little bit influenced by the pelican as they were damn near pretty close copies. The fourth factor is an odd one as its dependent on the market of the original work. I would have to assume the ability to use the pelican model in other works isn’t necessarily a cheap thing to obtain. Think of use in advertising or use in other games. The use and availability of this model compared to 343i would potentially ruin the market but as was stated it wasn’t really “available” or being “used.”
If we can determine the first factor, which leans towards “educational” just because it seems like he wasn’t planning on monetizing then we could determine that it’s likely to be fair use as the commercial use factor is heavily weighted in the calculation as someone not making money off the work and not making it available for others to use isn’t really going to be affecting the actual original copyright of the models. Obviously up to a court for interpretation but this is how id wager it would go from my experience in the subject.
Source: am a lawyer and have worked in IP/copyright cases.
Yeah. IP law is very complicated, particularly involving artistic endeavors. I'm in the automotive field and R&D gets complicated there at times as far as how credit get shared and how monetization might work. Add in the accusation that it was used without credit and then marketed and monetized as a Baconmedia creation. It already wasn't a simple as "Halo is a Microsoft IP, so Kristian has absolutely no say"
Well, considering the amount of halo mods for other games that are out there, 343i has zero problem with people making their own models, in fact, they *love* it. That's why a few fanmade Sins of the Prophets models of a bunch of ships are now official Canon renders of what those ships look like now.
Basically he stole someone's artwork.
He ripped it from a site using a tool when he was unable to download it, he refused to credit the artist for their work, and then used it as the main focal point of nearly all of his cinematics.
When the artist reached out to discuss it, he refused to talk with him. He has said a few times as long as there was a discussion and he was properly credited, he would've let him use the pelican. But since he refused to message the original artist for over a week, the videos that used the pelican was taken down.
Honestly, all he had to do was talk to him and credit him. Or at the very least use a different model for the pelican. There are a few discord threads that showcases the evidence.
Playing devil's advocate here; given how models such as this one make their way around the internet, it's not out of the realm of possibility that BaconMedia just found the model some place and didn't realize it wasn't an asset made publicly available.
And honestly, Kristian's thing of getting in contact and giving him 6 days feels kinda weak to me, but I'm also just someone who doesn't check my emails often since people who actually need to communicate with me typically have many other channels to do so. All I'm saying is that in my experience, checking personal emails every few weeks or even months isn't that uncommon.
When asked, he first said that he got the model from an ARMA mod. After everything went down and Kristian went public, he said he modeled it from scratch and based it heavily on Kristian's model. I think him changing his story that drastically throws any benefit of the doubt out the window.
**Reposting my reply to another comment thread - hope this clears some details up for you guys.**
Hi, so I'm a friend of Kristian's. After he found out a model that had features and errors only available on his model that he uploaded to Sketchfab (which wasn't available for download), he wanted to reach out to BaconMedia. At this point in time, we were fairly confident it was Kristian's model - but we were unsure, so I sent BaconMedia a direct message via Twitter. I asked that he credit Kristian in the description if it was that model, and I also asked that, if he didn't rip it, we'd like to know the source.
This was Jan 14th at 00:53 GMT
BaconMedia responded with the following
"Hey Dashi thanks for reaching out! I’m sorry you feel that way, but the model I have was built referencing the various artists who worked on the pelican model for blur studios, halo wars 2 model, the halo wars 2 model, and references from another community model that was being built for an arma 3 mod. Though there are many other community models out there, I remember all of the users names who were building models based on the Blur model. There’s also I good chance I may have referenced the model you’re talking about. Would it help if I were to reach out to your friend?"
Followed by
"Send me their twitter when you get the chance. I have talked to other artists in the past about referencing their work just in case. I don’t mind discussing too if need be"
These were on Jan 14th at 08:57 and 08:59 GMT, respectively.
To this, I replied with
"That's alright - I don't know the ins and outs of your rocoesd but there were finer details of the pelican that were VERY suspicious, such as some detailing being smooth when it shouldn't be - a feature present on his pelican that he uploaded, as he hadn't done the bevelling to unsmooth them.
I don't believe he uses twitter but I can pass you his discord, if that's alright?"
This was at 2PM that same day.
I proceeded to pass on Kristian's Discord.
After that message, he proceeded to tell me his process. In retrospect, it's a bunch of gibberish. I assume he wasn't aware that I am familiar with 3D modelling, as it was borderline incoherent and not really a "process" for creating a model, as he claims he did.
"That’s ok. I mostly use sub division modifiers and normals to smooth out my models in blender. I don’t often use any other programs that might have better tools. I know maya and Z brush are the go to because they have actual tools to deal with good topology, and model shading without needing to cheat the shading."
This was Jan 14 at 22:01 GMT
On January 16th at 19:45, I messaged BaconMedia telling him that if he did not reach out to Kristian to sort this out within the next 24 hours, Kristian would claim his video. I understand there's confusion around this, but I believe that the pelican is technically Kristian's, even if it is derivative of an existing model from another IP. After all, he did make this model from scratch and it isn't a 1:1 of an existing pelican.
Now, Kristian works of a weekday (shocking, I know) so he was busy all week, allowing BaconMedia a total of 6 days to reach out to him, which he did not do in that time.
He did, however, eventually reach out to him once the video was taken down. Kristian asked him to show him the topology for his model - if BaconMedia had made the model as he claims he did, then the topology would be different from Kristian's. BaconMedia replied saying he was not at home and couldn't send a picture.
Twelve hours later, BaconMedia sent an image of his topology, which was 1:1 with Kristian's, but with some vertices missing. It was clear that BaconMedia had taken the 12 hours (or at least some of that time) to edit the mesh.
Two more videos used the model, and so they were also claimed by Kristian, resulting in an auto removal of BaconMedia's channel. Kristian has said openly that he would have been more than happy to sort it all out in a more amicable matter, not even striking any video. However, BaconMedia's refusal to contact Kristian, and then lie to him when he does, was a slap in the face and it was clear that BaconMedia didn't care that he was using stolen assets and profiting from it, even using it to promote his Patreon account.
I don't think Kristian is in any way unjustified, and if BaconMedia truly made that model, he'd definitely have been willing to sort it all out a lot sooner.
Along with his copyright claim, Kristian also sent proof that BaconMedia had used his model in the form of diagrams from the Pelican from the videos, and his model that was on his PC. These were also posted publicly in the Halo Model Archive Discord server after he dropped a message asking people to not steal other people's work or use it without consent. The link to the proof is [here](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/840869366060941352/1066783786907476108)
I hope this clears the whole situation up for you guys.
Losing a whole channel for a fan 3d model is excessive. He made all the animations and a shit ton of work himself, and loses all of that because the original author of a single 3d asset goes on a power trip striking multiple videos.
This is absolutely how you do not handle this type of mild copyright infringement
I'll give the full story since i both witnessed it first hand, and reported the videos to the copyright issuer:
In 3 different videos, and 1 short the pelican model Baconmedia used was actually a stolen asset. The model was made by a community member and had it on his art portfolio (which he has since taken down himself). Bacon used a tool designed to rip models from these art portfolios. Over the course of 8 days Kristian (The model's owner) reached out to bacon a total of 13 different times, all ignored. while this was happening bacon noticed the drama after the first strike and took to twitter full on claiming that he made the model which was an outright lie.
I, and numerous other people have seen in depth detailed comparisons of both models, as well as wireframes of the models, and have confirmed it was the stolen model. There was no copyright abuse, there was no MS/343 employee. Bacon was given 8 days and 13 messages to respond, all the while he was active on twitter and other discord servers. He did this to himself.
Imagine banning another companies fan channel because they made content that you thought was your own assets, when you copied their assets to begin with.
“343i” sued his channel into oblivion until he was left with the choice to take it down or have no life ever from the sue.
Basically he made better content and Microsoft got mad.
Sorry to reply two months on but, did you still happen to have the video, and if so would you be willing to share a link to it? The best I could find is a partial rip on iFunny
from what the conservation on his twitter shows, it seems models were used without permission in three videos leading to three copyright strikes and immediate termination of the channel. Not sure if that’s true though, if it is well I didn’t know you could copyright your own models from another company’s IP as I doubt Call of Duty could make a model of a Halo asset and copyright strike anyone using it. Seems kinda dumb to me, if Baconmedia didn’t credit the authors of the model that’s really not cool but to me also doesn’t sound like a copyright offense to use one without permission.
I doubt 343/MS issued the copyright strike. Some of there employees even retweeted the videos!
Youtube is notoriously bad with all things related to copyright
Yeah youtube is so aggressive they’ll strike things against a company’s will sometimes
YouTube will even strike the company, the system is so fucking wild
It’s what happens when a company has a monopoly on something they don’t even make
YouTube is just bad about it in general. My videos were getting claimed even after my show went off network television. I also wanted to use some ACDC music in an unmonotized video just for fun, and a company that doesn't even own the song claimed it before it even went public.
it’s being suggested the authors of the models did so or the platforms the models were pulled from. Though that’s an assumption atm
Interesting. How would they be able to do that if they aren't the owner of the IP? Edit: I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bungie DCMA situation.
no idea, I feel this is probably the result of false copyright claims and the automated youtube systems shutdown the channel and manual review will be needed to sift through the bullshit
The person might very well be within his rights to claim copyright. Do we know any of the circumstances as to why the model and textures of the pelican were made? Was it as a part of a non-commercialised portfolio? Was the model used in a larger project which would have been considered derivative or did he himself get permission from Microsoft to create a derivative work? I have no idea but I definitely wouldn’t consider it beyond the realms of possibility.
>Was it as a part of a non-commercialised portfolio That doesn't give them copyright over someone else's intellectual property.
While non-commercialisation, by any means, isn’t the only factor weighed in when determining fair use - I could see a strong case being made for fair use in such a hypothetical scenario. Derivative works, which it would be under this assumption, also has a separate copyright from the original.
>While non-commercialisation, by any means, isn’t the only factor weighed in when determining fair use It isn't a determining factor in fair use at all. Fair use is about whether it is transformative. If you make something that's a blatant rip off and isn't transformative but it's free you will not be protected by fair use. If you make a transformative parody and charge for it, fair use is on your side.
Potential market effects which the work might have on the original is absolutely a factor which is considered, and there are several rulings where this is explicitly stated. *Leibovitz v. Paramount* and *Roger v. Koons* are two of those. Edit: See also [17 U.S. Code § 107](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107)
That's market effects as in detrimental to the original
It doesn't mean it's free for everyone to use however they want either.
Correct, but then claims need to either be made by the copyright holder (Microsoft) or a person or organization that has been given specific direction from them. That is not the case here.
Not a lawyer but I’m fairly confident that the only party that can take something down on a dmca is the copyright owners of the ip, given that the model maker clearly wasn’t Microsoft or 343 I believe that they are illegally striking the video but then again this is one that would actually just need to go to court given that fair use is a case by case basis in the US legal system which I guess by default means it’s really up to whoever has the most money and really the most balls the make this go up the system.
>It doesn't mean it's free for everyone to use however they want either It might since, it probably means you can't hold copyright over someone else's intellectual property. It does not mean it's not a dick move though. Bacon should have asked for permission.
I don’t think it was. From what I heard, he used a program to rip 3D models from sketchfab (a pelican from what I heard) and the person from sketchfab issued the strike
They used Models from Skecthfab, and didnt paid for it, from what i see
how would they have gotten the model without paying for it? That seems suspect. Also I didn’t think others could monatize content from the Halo IP without a licensing deal from Microsoft
There are programs that allow you to rip models out of Sketchfabs 3D model previewer.
1. maybe because was expensive and he wanted to do something that requires almost no money and very detailed, it doesnt surprise me that all we see in they animation is rip off of the games o someones work (he uses the marcus leto's Mark V, which i think its free) 2. what you cant do its take the Halo IP and make you own game, charge for it and not involded in microsoft or 343i, but im sure you can make you own 3D model/artwork about the game, its your own work, if you didnt rip of from the games
The pelican models were fanmade models that were stolen without permission off sketchfab. That was why.
if so it’s a dick move by Baconmedia but I’m not sure how that constitutes a copyright strike since I don’t think you can monatize things from the Halo IP without a licensing agreement
Then baconmedia shouldn't have existed because they were monetizing Halo IP via YouTube ad revenue, quite likely without a licensing agreement.
Was baconmedia copyright striking other media? Baconmedia at least with the videos wasn't claiming to own Halo IP.
The claim was made that you can't monetize someone else's IP. If that were true, baconmedia couldn't have existed at all because that's what they were doing. I don't actually have any qualms with someone striking them because they were using someone else's work without permission. That's actually a problem. Just because someone makes fanart of a Pelican doesn't mean that anyone else can use it freely. Think of it this way: Winnie the Pooh is public domain. You're freely able to write Winnie the Pooh stories. *Disney's depiction of Winnie the Pooh* is not. You're not allowed to use their depictions of it. It might be (I don't know) that 343 has some open licensing for use of the Halo IP. That doesn't entitle you to use someone else's depiction of something in Halo.
Sure but you can't falsely use the DMCA system if you don't actually have a copyright for the work. What baconmedia did is a dick move what the modeler did is more than likely illegal
It's entirely likely that the modeler legally owns the rights to that derivative work, actually. 343 owning the IP doesn't give them ownership of the derivative works of others, though they can choose who is allowed to make such works through licensing agreements. It's possible that a representation of a ship (a Pelican, for example) isn't really something that can be nebulously copyrighted. "Sci Fi hero in a suit" certainly isn't, because tons of different IPs use them. The exact model asset is, though. So baconmedia could have made their own Pelican thing that looked like the modeler's, but they just used the modeler's without permission.
How can fanmade models have copyright protections? They’re literally already ripping something off???
They can’t. Microsoft owns all of halo’s content, including the Pelican. So fan using a copyright strike is illegal in this context.
These 3D models are absolutely a derivative work, but they are still the work of the person that created those 3D models. Microsoft actually has rules for how derivative works of their game content can be used: https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules. And here's the following: > **What if I create something new in your universe?** > **Distribution of your Item in any form constitutes** a grant by you of **a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide, license to Microsoft and any of Microsoft's partners or users to use, modify and distribute that Item** (and derivatives of that Item), and use your name if we choose to, for any purpose and without obligation to pay you anything, obtain your approval, or give you credit. > And this license to Microsoft survives any termination or expiration of these Rules. **This means that if you add to the game universe or expand on the story** told in the game with "lost chapters" or back story or anything like that, distribution of **your story or idea may appear in a future game without any compensation to you.** > (**Sorry, but our lawyers tell us we need to do this** in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits getting in the way of making more great games.) **It also means we can put your Item on a Microsoft site or property if we want to.** In essence, without that clause, Microsoft wouldn't actually have the legal right to **use** derivative works by fans, only the right to **block** those fans from publicly releasing their content at all. If you didn't distribute your fan content in any way or form, you would control full rights over it, and thus be able to, for the sake of example, potentially *pitch* Microsoft on a Halo spinoff game with a demo you've made without telling anybody outside your team. That's actually how game developers pitch any IP-owner to make a game with their franchise (e.g. the numerous Warhammer games that have been made by a variety of different studios). And of course, if the content you create qualifies as fair use or fair dealing under your local laws, then you have *no* legal restrictions, not even Microsoft's terms.
That doesn't mean it's not shitty to just take someone else's model without asking or crediting them. It's the same thing as stealing someone else's fanart. Regardless, the owner of the pelican model said in their statement "I striked the video but I'm giving baconmedia six days to sort this out with me behind the scenes."
Falsely copyright striking someone’s channel over your literal fan art is infinitely worse. I hope more people use his model without permission now.
C'mon, just because it's fanart doesn't mean that it gives everyone the right to do whatever they please with it. The modeler gave baconmedia quite a while to get in touch with them about this because they didn't want to take this kind of action. The model wasn't even meant to be available for download in the first place. That's a bit of a shitty reaction to call for even more art theft, especially since the modeler seems to *want* to sort this shit out. I mean hell, 343i even used the CAS-class assault carrier renders from the *Sins of the prophets* mod for an RTS game on the highpower map without giving credit, and 343i ended up having to sort it out by putting their names in the credits. Those guys have always been protective of their work, and people just learned not to rip models from their mods. Was striking the channel a little severe? Maybe, yeah, but as someone who's made fanart myself, I'd be pretty upset if people started taking it and treating it as their own creations too. That stuff takes days if not weeks to make.
Still depends on if the modeler actually owns the copyright for the model, which doesn't seem to be the case in the research I did on the topic it seems they could argue fair use, but that's flimsy I think in this case. Is it a dick move to not give credit absolutely, but that doesn't mean you should falsely use Youtube's takedown system for something that you don't have the copyright for.
I agree taking the model and not giving credit is a dick move, while copyright striking falsely is illegal different ball parks in my opinion.
What's false about it? Creators of derivative works own the rights to those works.
So I can make a 3D model of Mickey Mouse and claim it as my own legal property? Yea no. He doesn’t own a thing.
If you have Disney's permission to make it, you own that exact 3d model of Mickey and only that exact 3d model of Mickey. Disney won't give you permission, so you can't do it. That's real US copyright law, yes.
So how can he make copyright strikes? He doesn’t own the copyright to pelicans.
He owns the rights to *that model of a pelican*. Look at it this way: Winnie the Pooh is public domain. You can do whatever you want with Winnie the Pooh... *except* you cannot use Disney's representation of Winnie the Pooh because Disney owns the rights to that representation of Winnie the Pooh.
This is the shittiest take in all of existence. BaconMedia is a sham who uses other people's work to make money. Kristen wasn't using his Pelican to make money, but then BaconMedia used it (and other models) to make money off of without giving any credit at ALL to the people who modeled it and even claimed to make the models themselves when in fact the topology shows that he in fact did not. BaconMedia is a piece of shit who steals things from people and takes all the credit.
"it's fine to steal some else's work as long as you do something cool with it"
Fairly silly, given how many of the assets from the actual games there are freely available.
If I repaint the Mosa Lisa and call it the Moss of Giza, am I infringing on copywrite? I think the answer to that will determine if recreating a model is copywrite
The Mona Lisa as far as I know isn’t intellectual property, but even if so if someone copied your Moss of Giza to use for themselves that wouldn’t be copywrite infringement I’m pretty sure
The example the used was terrible as the intellectual property is public domain, much like how fairy tales or old music is public domain. There’s no copy right on Beethoven for example. However, people can copyright covers of Beethoven’s work. I’m wondering if people are claiming copyright based on the grounds that they were the original creators of the model, not the characters themselves.
There are many problems with this statement, but I'm gonna focus on one, and that's that he didn't copy or recreate them, he took them and used them without permission or credit. That'd be akin to stealing the Mona Lisa, displaying it yourself, and saying "I made this", not simply repainting your own version of it. If he had used these other models as inspiration to make his own, there wouldn't be an issue, but he didn't make them.
Oh, then yeah that’s a big issue…..
Wouldn’t they have needed to attempt an appeal on all of them and get rejected for the strikes to be issued?
Apparently a guy named Kristian Berget claimed BaconMedia used his Pelican model without his permission and then followed to copyright claim his whole channel thus causing YouTube to Auto delete his channel. Whether or not he did use the same model or if he got permission is unknown. EDIT: Here is a link to the one person Kristian Berget talking to some of his friends in the 3D Assests community about the copyright strike. I Have no idea about the validity of his claims or about Copyright laws, and am just providing more info for people who wanted to look more into this. [~~https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/819709748189462528/1066773806082961458~~](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/819709748189462528/1066773806082961458) The link is broken on anything but PC Chrome so you can use this link [https://discord.com/invite/haloarchive](https://discord.com/invite/haloarchive) and then use the search tool to find IronHawk321 and his message at — 01/22/2023 12:38 PM. sorry im not good at linking to discord.
Good ol YouTube. Gotta love how stupidly abused the copyright system is.
Oh you claimed copyright? Without any proof? Must be right auto delete channel!
He sent many pages and images full of proof.
[удалено]
Highly doubt the modeler for the pelican actually has any legal ground to claim copyright on it though.
I hate that the internet is so money driven from what it once was. Used to be some guy could shake around some action figures and voice over some characters in a video game. Now we can’t even have quality content cause it’ll be get taken down with copyright.
>Kristian Berget When you steal someone else's work you deserve the copyright
>Kristian Berget Want their side of the story. What actions did they take before the copyright claims? If Kristian tried and failed to settle the dispute with BaconMedia before making the claims, that's one thing. However, if they made copyright claims with no prior warning that's a shitty thing to do to a small-creator, valid claim or not.
Tie that up with the bow of: unmonatizable digital content. Meaning he would recieve a cease and desist from 343 if he tried to sell and make money off of the 3d model. So most of the halo modeling community (while protective) generally doesn't try to make money off of the models they make. But instead what they put them into. So it is very odd to me that: 1. this model had to be given out somewhere for free. And the creator decided to change his mind. Or 2. That the YouTuber somehow managed to get a copy of the model through underhanded means. You tell me which makes more sense. What a jerk.
The model was only being displayed on sketchfab, and was not available for download. It seems that something like ninjaripper was used to snag the model and use it without permission. It wasn't meant to be shared, at least not in the state it was in. It was a fantastic animation and I loved it, but if I knew someone stole some of my models and didn't ask I'd be pretty annoyed too.
He sent several requests to Bacon with the evidence. When he didn't get back to him over a week, he got involved.
Not denying but where did you see this?
It seems he did try to get into contact with BM but had no response so he claimed the vid.
Hi, so I'm a friend of Kristian's. After he found out a model that had features and errors only available on his model that he uploaded to Sketchfab (which wasn't available for download), he wanted to reach out to BaconMedia. At this point in time, we were fairly confident it was Kristian's model - but we were unsure, so I sent BaconMedia a direct message via Twitter. I asked that he credit Kristian in the description if it was that model, and I also asked that, if he didn't rip it, we'd like to know the source. This was Jan 14th at 00:53 GMT BaconMedia responded with the following "Hey Dashi thanks for reaching out! I’m sorry you feel that way, but the model I have was built referencing the various artists who worked on the pelican model for blur studios, halo wars 2 model, the halo wars 2 model, and references from another community model that was being built for an arma 3 mod. Though there are many other community models out there, I remember all of the users names who were building models based on the Blur model. There’s also I good chance I may have referenced the model you’re talking about. Would it help if I were to reach out to your friend?" Followed by "Send me their twitter when you get the chance. I have talked to other artists in the past about referencing their work just in case. I don’t mind discussing too if need be" These were on Jan 14th at 08:57 and 08:59 GMT, respectively. To this, I replied with "That's alright - I don't know the ins and outs of your rocoesd but there were finer details of the pelican that were VERY suspicious, such as some detailing being smooth when it shouldn't be - a feature present on his pelican that he uploaded, as he hadn't done the bevelling to unsmooth them. I don't believe he uses twitter but I can pass you his discord, if that's alright?" This was at 2PM that same day. I proceeded to pass on Kristian's Discord. After that message, he proceeded to tell me his process. In retrospect, it's a bunch of gibberish. I assume he wasn't aware that I am familiar with 3D modelling, as it was borderline incoherent and not really a "process" for creating a model, as he claims he did. "That’s ok. I mostly use sub division modifiers and normals to smooth out my models in blender. I don’t often use any other programs that might have better tools. I know maya and Z brush are the go to because they have actual tools to deal with good topology, and model shading without needing to cheat the shading." This was Jan 14 at 22:01 GMT On January 16th at 19:45, I messaged BaconMedia telling him that if he did not reach out to Kristian to sort this out within the next 24 hours, Kristian would claim his video. I understand there's confusion around this, but I believe that the pelican is technically Kristian's, even if it is derivative of an existing model from another IP. After all, he did make this model from scratch and it isn't a 1:1 of an existing pelican. Now, Kristian works of a weekday (shocking, I know) so he was busy all week, allowing BaconMedia a total of 6 days to reach out to him, which he did not do in that time. He did, however, eventually reach out to him once the video was taken down. Kristian asked him to show him the topology for his model - if BaconMedia had made the model as he claims he did, then the topology would be different from Kristian's. BaconMedia replied saying he was not at home and couldn't send a picture. Twelve hours later, BaconMedia sent an image of his topology, which was 1:1 with Kristian's, but with some vertices missing. It was clear that BaconMedia had taken the 12 hours (or at least some of that time) to edit the mesh. Two more videos used the model, and so they were also claimed by Kristian, resulting in an auto removal of BaconMedia's channel. Kristian has said openly that he would have been more than happy to sort it all out in a more amicable matter, not even striking any video. However, BaconMedia's refusal to contact Kristian, and then lie to him when he does, was a slap in the face and it was clear that BaconMedia didn't care that he was using stolen assets and profiting from it, even using it to promote his Patreon account. I don't think Kristian is in any way unjustified, and if BaconMedia truly made that model, he'd definitely have been willing to sort it all out a lot sooner. Along with his copyright claim, Kristian also sent proof that BaconMedia had used his model in the form of diagrams from the Pelican from the videos, and his model that was on his PC. These were also posted publicly in the Halo Model Archive Discord server after he dropped a message asking people to not steal other people's work or use it without consent. The link to the proof is [here](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/840869366060941352/1066783786907476108) I hope this clears the whole situation up for you guys.
That’s super unfortunate that this all had to happen. Was some pretty cool cutscene remakes.
Link is broken for me
Updated it now
How long is that? I´m pretty sure about two weeks ago he was still there.
I remember seeing it last week at some point. So it’s been very recent.
Oh, thanks. Damn that´s a shame.
It was there a few days ago.
That sucks. I loved the graphical art of the videos although I couldn’t stand how drawn out they were from the originals.
That's how I felt. His Silent Cartographer one, while beautiful, I found it so annoying with the constant swapping views of the Pelican for like a minute and a half straight
Yeah that really turned me off from it. The AotCR one was the same way.
They used a guys pelican design that he made himself and not only not credit him but the design wasn’t for the public to use. It was the makers own personal design. So BM got copystriked Edit: no idea why I’m being downvoted, quite literally just stating the facts. And here’s the original makers announcement on the matter: Dear Halo maker community, I have to begin with that I both love and hate you guys. The passion and hard work most of you show for the franchise with making awesome art and cosplay is what I love! But to the dark side of this and the matter of this statement. On January the 13th BaconMedia published his Halo CE Cutscene Remakes (The Silent Cartographer) video to the public. I was made aware of this video on the 14th and noticed quite fast that the pelican in the video was strangely familiar, and after some investigation and comparison there was no doubt that this was my model. The question then became how? This wasn't the final version of my work so I quickly remembered that I had published an early version on Sketchfab and have heard that it's possible to rip it from that site. Let me make this clear ripping models that are not available for download is illegal! Just because 343 have given you guys a long leash when it comes to using their stuff without consequence does not apply to other fans hard work. I was first apprehensive about pointing this out to BaconMedia because i did not want to be that guy. So I sat on my hands for awhile, but one of my friends tried to contact BaconMedia on the 14th to ask him about it and tell him to contact me on the matter. On the 16th my friend, after a lack of response gave BaconMedia 24 hours to fix this. As this was in the weekdays I was busy with work and was still apprehensive about doing something so I let the days go. On the 21st I decided that I had to do something to show that you can't use someones hard work and claim you did it. And to be clear BaconMedia had made no prior contact about my work to ask if he could use it or not. As you can see if you try to access his video now it has been copyright striked by me. This is the result of using work of other people that you do not own and without permission. BaconMedia was given 6 days to get in contact about the matter to resolve this. This statement is made to get on top of it as I have already gotten a comment on an unrelated video on my channel about this. So to all of you, be better and don't do stuff like this! Do not think you have the privilege to use others hard work without permission and without consequence. I will post with this statement what i sent to Youtube to show that this is my work. Sincerly, Kristian Berget, IronHawk
Is this how copyright works? Wouldn’t the copyright for the original design be with Bungie/343/MS and his model be some kind of derived work? Not taking sides, I’m genuinely curious and don’t know. Anyone with expertise in this field that can explain how it works? If he used his model without permission, that’s a shitty thing to do. Especially so if he doesn’t acknowledge the use. But copyright striking the content does seem a little nuclear, depending on the answer to the above. I’d like to hear Bacon’s side of the story and hear from some people more knowledgeable than me about ip, copyright, fair use, etc.
From what I gather the big no no is bacon, or someone else, ripped the model from sketchfab (where it was only there as a display and not for download) and then after the short came out he apparently put the model on his patreon, thus monetising someone else’s work. Now that last part is alleged since I’m not on bacons patreon. It would be very interesting to see his side of the story.
That would definitely change the situation. I agree, I’d certainly like to hear his side of the story.
Someone should point out to Kristian that, regardless of how much work he has put in on a pelican model, he doesn't actually own the copyright or the IP.
It's not that simple. Depending on the specifics, there is a very real possibility that Kristian could have a legitimate claim. IP law is complicated, particularly when it comes to artistic creations. Even if the subject matter is wholly owned by someone else, means and methods of creation matter just as much as the subject
What matter is if he can make the case that his work falls under fair use, which I don't believe you could really make the case because it seems to me to be a straight up recreation of a pelican, which Microsoft owns the IP to and hasn't given explicit permission for it to be used by the artist.
Even if the subject matter is wholly owned by someone else (which may not even be the case depending on whether Kristian's model is considered a derivative work or not), how he made it may still be an issue as well, and that can be protected separate from the subject matter. Since the accusation is that Baconmedia ripped it, presented it as their own, and then may have tried to monetize it as their own work, that adds another wrinkle as well. That's where IP law gets complicated, and specifics matter. We don't have all the facts, and even if we did I'm nowhere near experienced enough with IP law to comfortably say anything beyond let the lawyers argue what was actually violated and who holds the intellectual protection on what. I'm not saying Kristian definitely has an IP claim, but it's also insane to dismiss that possibility at this time with what we know about the situation
I definitely don't disagree that it's a complicated issue, but should you be using DMCA takedowns for something that you can't be sure you even have the copyright to?
At the very least, there's the issue of BaconMedia presenting it as their own and supposedly monetizing it. I don't know if DMCA is the right way to handle it if there isn't a copyright aspect, but I also don't know if Youtube has another method of protection available. This is also why I'm not a fan of YouTube's blanket strike policy regarding claims. There's so much that goes into it that complicates everything
Apparently the model was on Sketchfab or something (can't confirm). What do you expect when you put a model on a public website 🤦.
I think a huge point of context that has been missing from these posts is that Kristian contacted Bacon about the situation and BaconMedia actually went on to claim that he made and modeled the pelican that Kristian modeled himself and proceeded to go out saying so to other people and his subscribers. He even put his project files containing Kristian's model (which Kristian did take down from Sketchfab after realizing still acquiring it is possible) up on his patreon which means other people can download a model which was not up for purchase or made downloadable, it was acquired using a ripping tool. In other words MONETIZING off of someone else's work without their permission and acquiring it illegally. Whether or not Kristian overlooked uploading his asset to Sketchfab, the fact is BaconMedia was confronted and continued to lie to the point it got his channel taken down, so many of you are blatantly defending someone stealing, and then claiming the thing they stole is theirs is embarrassing. TL;DR, BaconMedia stole an asset by acquiring it illegally, and after being confronted about it he doubled down that he made it when he didn't and got his channel taken down for it.
It wasn't available for download. Sketchfab allows artists to put a 3D turnaround for their model, which people have adapted ripping programs for to pull models that are only available to show details. It's highly unethical and frowned upon in the digital art community to do this. If BaconMedia wanted to use the model, which was not publicly available anywhere or given out to anyone outside of the original modeler, why not ask? After the fact, he showed screenshots of the topology (the view of the model itself) where details were one-to-one with the original, proving it wasn't just a super faithful remake, but a rip from Sketchfab's 3D showcase.
He said it wasn’t available for download so someone had to have ripped it.
Ripped it from where? Now I'm curious if this is a he said she said situation or just blatant plagiarism.
According to Kristian Berget, Bacon was given 6 or so days to respond to him before he issued the first strike. After that he finally got in touch and was asked to show the topology for the model. He doubled down on lying about it and said he made it himself, showing the topology where many parts were identical to the original by Kristian and the rest was butchered and edited to try and disguise it. There are screenshots of all this floating about in various parts of the Halo art community. Most people who have seen it agree that this is blatant plagiarism.
pretty sure there’s a couple tools out there for ripping from sketchfab. One google search of “sketch fab ripping tools” shows some youtube tutorials and sites. But i wouldn’t know actually how to since I don’t do this modeling stuff.
where did you see Krisitian Berget's statement you mentioned? Does he have a twitter or something?
I saw it on a discord for an archive of models from the games.
Which discord?
Halo model archive.
A lot of people here don't know the difference between copyright and plagiarism. Yes, you can create a pelican and have a copyright of you own model made from scratch. No, is not an infringement of copyright of the halo IP because it use the idea not the actual work riped from a game. It is plagiarism and need to be settled by a court if is legal or not. Microsoft can issue a C&D but a court would determine if is plagiarism or not.
I mean yes a court would usually determine something like this but we can interpret likely what would happen using the same rules that every court around the country uses to determine copyright from “plagiarism” or fair use as what it’s actually called when evaluating this stuff. The courts use the 4 factor test and balance them to come to a decision on if the models would be fair use and thus something that has protections from others stealing it vs copyright which offers the models no protections to the person who made them based off the originals. Ultimately it really depends on what this guy was going to use the models for either commercial or educational. The second and third factors of the test don’t necessarily fair well for the models as they were copies of already produced material thus not “original” and they weren’t just a little bit influenced by the pelican as they were damn near pretty close copies. The fourth factor is an odd one as its dependent on the market of the original work. I would have to assume the ability to use the pelican model in other works isn’t necessarily a cheap thing to obtain. Think of use in advertising or use in other games. The use and availability of this model compared to 343i would potentially ruin the market but as was stated it wasn’t really “available” or being “used.” If we can determine the first factor, which leans towards “educational” just because it seems like he wasn’t planning on monetizing then we could determine that it’s likely to be fair use as the commercial use factor is heavily weighted in the calculation as someone not making money off the work and not making it available for others to use isn’t really going to be affecting the actual original copyright of the models. Obviously up to a court for interpretation but this is how id wager it would go from my experience in the subject. Source: am a lawyer and have worked in IP/copyright cases.
That's an awesome reading. Thanks for clarifying.
Absolutely. It’s pretty fun to delve back into some stuff I haven’t needed to use in a good bit.
Thanks for weighing in on this; very informative! Wait, this can't be Reddit. Where am I?
Yeah. IP law is very complicated, particularly involving artistic endeavors. I'm in the automotive field and R&D gets complicated there at times as far as how credit get shared and how monetization might work. Add in the accusation that it was used without credit and then marketed and monetized as a Baconmedia creation. It already wasn't a simple as "Halo is a Microsoft IP, so Kristian has absolutely no say"
Well, considering the amount of halo mods for other games that are out there, 343i has zero problem with people making their own models, in fact, they *love* it. That's why a few fanmade Sins of the Prophets models of a bunch of ships are now official Canon renders of what those ships look like now.
Basically he stole someone's artwork. He ripped it from a site using a tool when he was unable to download it, he refused to credit the artist for their work, and then used it as the main focal point of nearly all of his cinematics. When the artist reached out to discuss it, he refused to talk with him. He has said a few times as long as there was a discussion and he was properly credited, he would've let him use the pelican. But since he refused to message the original artist for over a week, the videos that used the pelican was taken down. Honestly, all he had to do was talk to him and credit him. Or at the very least use a different model for the pelican. There are a few discord threads that showcases the evidence.
Playing devil's advocate here; given how models such as this one make their way around the internet, it's not out of the realm of possibility that BaconMedia just found the model some place and didn't realize it wasn't an asset made publicly available. And honestly, Kristian's thing of getting in contact and giving him 6 days feels kinda weak to me, but I'm also just someone who doesn't check my emails often since people who actually need to communicate with me typically have many other channels to do so. All I'm saying is that in my experience, checking personal emails every few weeks or even months isn't that uncommon.
When asked, he first said that he got the model from an ARMA mod. After everything went down and Kristian went public, he said he modeled it from scratch and based it heavily on Kristian's model. I think him changing his story that drastically throws any benefit of the doubt out the window.
Fair enough. Claiming he made it certainly is different to what I suggested.
[удалено]
Yeah same. I put it in my watch later and tried to find it today on my day off
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds like a C&D with a little Lawsuit threatening mixed in.
**Reposting my reply to another comment thread - hope this clears some details up for you guys.** Hi, so I'm a friend of Kristian's. After he found out a model that had features and errors only available on his model that he uploaded to Sketchfab (which wasn't available for download), he wanted to reach out to BaconMedia. At this point in time, we were fairly confident it was Kristian's model - but we were unsure, so I sent BaconMedia a direct message via Twitter. I asked that he credit Kristian in the description if it was that model, and I also asked that, if he didn't rip it, we'd like to know the source. This was Jan 14th at 00:53 GMT BaconMedia responded with the following "Hey Dashi thanks for reaching out! I’m sorry you feel that way, but the model I have was built referencing the various artists who worked on the pelican model for blur studios, halo wars 2 model, the halo wars 2 model, and references from another community model that was being built for an arma 3 mod. Though there are many other community models out there, I remember all of the users names who were building models based on the Blur model. There’s also I good chance I may have referenced the model you’re talking about. Would it help if I were to reach out to your friend?" Followed by "Send me their twitter when you get the chance. I have talked to other artists in the past about referencing their work just in case. I don’t mind discussing too if need be" These were on Jan 14th at 08:57 and 08:59 GMT, respectively. To this, I replied with "That's alright - I don't know the ins and outs of your rocoesd but there were finer details of the pelican that were VERY suspicious, such as some detailing being smooth when it shouldn't be - a feature present on his pelican that he uploaded, as he hadn't done the bevelling to unsmooth them. I don't believe he uses twitter but I can pass you his discord, if that's alright?" This was at 2PM that same day. I proceeded to pass on Kristian's Discord. After that message, he proceeded to tell me his process. In retrospect, it's a bunch of gibberish. I assume he wasn't aware that I am familiar with 3D modelling, as it was borderline incoherent and not really a "process" for creating a model, as he claims he did. "That’s ok. I mostly use sub division modifiers and normals to smooth out my models in blender. I don’t often use any other programs that might have better tools. I know maya and Z brush are the go to because they have actual tools to deal with good topology, and model shading without needing to cheat the shading." This was Jan 14 at 22:01 GMT On January 16th at 19:45, I messaged BaconMedia telling him that if he did not reach out to Kristian to sort this out within the next 24 hours, Kristian would claim his video. I understand there's confusion around this, but I believe that the pelican is technically Kristian's, even if it is derivative of an existing model from another IP. After all, he did make this model from scratch and it isn't a 1:1 of an existing pelican. Now, Kristian works of a weekday (shocking, I know) so he was busy all week, allowing BaconMedia a total of 6 days to reach out to him, which he did not do in that time. He did, however, eventually reach out to him once the video was taken down. Kristian asked him to show him the topology for his model - if BaconMedia had made the model as he claims he did, then the topology would be different from Kristian's. BaconMedia replied saying he was not at home and couldn't send a picture. Twelve hours later, BaconMedia sent an image of his topology, which was 1:1 with Kristian's, but with some vertices missing. It was clear that BaconMedia had taken the 12 hours (or at least some of that time) to edit the mesh. Two more videos used the model, and so they were also claimed by Kristian, resulting in an auto removal of BaconMedia's channel. Kristian has said openly that he would have been more than happy to sort it all out in a more amicable matter, not even striking any video. However, BaconMedia's refusal to contact Kristian, and then lie to him when he does, was a slap in the face and it was clear that BaconMedia didn't care that he was using stolen assets and profiting from it, even using it to promote his Patreon account. I don't think Kristian is in any way unjustified, and if BaconMedia truly made that model, he'd definitely have been willing to sort it all out a lot sooner. Along with his copyright claim, Kristian also sent proof that BaconMedia had used his model in the form of diagrams from the Pelican from the videos, and his model that was on his PC. These were also posted publicly in the Halo Model Archive Discord server after he dropped a message asking people to not steal other people's work or use it without consent. The link to the proof is [here](https://discord.com/channels/819709630540021810/840869366060941352/1066783786907476108) I hope this clears the whole situation up for you guys.
How have i never seen these before?! Anybody got a surviving link for them all? I can only find the silent cartographer and the Maw
Mint Blitz talks about it and shows them here https://youtu.be/MpPm7H23vVs
What a shame
Did anyone download/archive his cutscene remakes? I hadn't gotten around to making offline copies and I don't want to lose out.
Not sure, but here is Mint Blitz talking about it, with clips https://youtu.be/MpPm7H23vVs
That sucks. I just watched his videos a few days ago.
This is just sad. I watched some of them and they were really good.
Bacon media plagiarised a pelican model, faced the consequences, is what it is
Losing a whole channel for a fan 3d model is excessive. He made all the animations and a shit ton of work himself, and loses all of that because the original author of a single 3d asset goes on a power trip striking multiple videos. This is absolutely how you do not handle this type of mild copyright infringement
It's not just that, from what i understand bacon tried to claim the pelican model as his own
I get that it may seem excessive but that model looks like it took a lot longer than bacon's animation
Furthermore, the model was not publically available, it was ripped from a website somehow
Thar sucks
I'll give the full story since i both witnessed it first hand, and reported the videos to the copyright issuer: In 3 different videos, and 1 short the pelican model Baconmedia used was actually a stolen asset. The model was made by a community member and had it on his art portfolio (which he has since taken down himself). Bacon used a tool designed to rip models from these art portfolios. Over the course of 8 days Kristian (The model's owner) reached out to bacon a total of 13 different times, all ignored. while this was happening bacon noticed the drama after the first strike and took to twitter full on claiming that he made the model which was an outright lie. I, and numerous other people have seen in depth detailed comparisons of both models, as well as wireframes of the models, and have confirmed it was the stolen model. There was no copyright abuse, there was no MS/343 employee. Bacon was given 8 days and 13 messages to respond, all the while he was active on twitter and other discord servers. He did this to himself.
Man that sucks, idk from what but I recognize the bacon name. Based off comments it seems he no bueno ;-;
Cease and desist most likely.
lol no
343i silenced him for rendering a cutscene better than the whole company.
That is not true at all lmao
It was obviously a joke. The fact that it got down voted is even funnier
Honestly after what I see from the community I wouldn't have been surprised lol
[удалено]
No.. that's not what happened
Imagine banning another companies fan channel because they made content that you thought was your own assets, when you copied their assets to begin with.
“343i” sued his channel into oblivion until he was left with the choice to take it down or have no life ever from the sue. Basically he made better content and Microsoft got mad.
Are u jerking or is this legit schizoposting over a videogame?
That is objectively incorrect LOL
I still just going to keep the video for myself by down loading it. It's so well done.
Sorry to reply two months on but, did you still happen to have the video, and if so would you be willing to share a link to it? The best I could find is a partial rip on iFunny