Forest Cabin: Survive

[Jinjetica]

I see assets being clearly ripped straight from don't starve in this game, it's really sad to see people trying to profit off of the hard work this company put into making these games. The skeleton heads, the rocks, trees, and enemies are plainly taken straight from don't starve, while other content is just the same content but altered slightly. I don't know if Klei is aware of this game, or not. I'm not able to contact them otherwise, so I will leave this here. I see this mobile game on the app store, and am deeply disappointed. I noticed that after I redownloaded the game, they had the trees hiding in the background, rather than in plain view in the foreground, but it doesn't change the fact that they are recolored lumpy pine trees, pine trees, tea trees and rainforest trees. These are just the things I noticed starting the game, not to mention the borders and the brute case being used as chests.

[gaymime]

this certainly looks like copyright infringement. way too many things bear striking resemblance to ds/t artwork

[Capybara007]

why care for ai slop that makes $2 bruh

Edited Sunday at 07:04 PM by Capybara007

[AliceShiki]

1 hour ago, gaymime said:

this certainly looks like copyright infringement. way too many things bear striking resemblance to ds/t artwork

Definitely not defending the devs of this phone game, but for what it's worth... I don't think stuff like stones and trees can be protected by copyright law due to how generic they are. If you choose a similar art style, you'll naturally arrive at a similar final product in terms of rocks and trees and the like.

The art style is definitely inspired by DS/DST, but Art Style is also not copyrightable to the best of my knowledge...

I think an actual claim against them would require stuff like datamined models and seeing if they mimic Klei's models, because that would mean stolen assets and stuff... But well, that would require a deeper dive into things.

Honestly something that kinda sucks, since it's pretty obviously a ripoff, but proving it is more complicated, sadly.

[Tigris Nano]

49 minutes ago, Capybara007 said:

why care for ai slop that makes $2 bruh

It makes more than that considering its mobile app with microtransactions and ads. Good profit considering its basic game using assets from other game. 

16 minutes ago, AliceShiki said:

I don't think stuff like stones and trees can be protected by copyright law due to how generic they are. If you choose a similar art style, you'll naturally arrive at a similar final product in terms of rocks and trees and the like.

The problem is that its not just art style. Its whole sprites. Skulls, rocks, boulders, chests, trees, great depth worm - all those sprites are dont starve assets. 

[AliceShiki]

4 hours ago, Tigris Nano said:

The problem is that its not just art style. Its whole sprites. Skulls, rocks, boulders, chests, trees, great depth worm - all those sprites are dont starve assets. 

I feel like all of those, except maybe the worm (and even that is a maybe), could easily fall under "it would be trivial to reach that same design while trying to use that same art style" due to them just being generic thingies (not saying that DST's art style isn't unique, mind you. I'm saying that if you're trying to emulate that same art style, arriving at those same assets could be quite natural... Or at least, one could claim that, and it would be hard to prove otherwise)... So proving that they're ripped assets would involve more in-depth investigation.

And to be clear, I'm just saying it's probably gonna be a pain for Klei to do anything about this. I'm not trying to defend the mobile game. I'm pretty sure they're guilty there... I just think it will be a pain for Klei to do anything.

Edited yesterday at 12:18 AM by AliceShiki

[DegenerateFurry]

1 hour ago, AliceShiki said:

I feel like all of those, except maybe the worm (and even that is a maybe), could easily fall under "it would be trivial to reach that same design while trying to use that same art style" due to them just being generic thingies (not saying that DST's art style isn't unique, mind you. I'm saying that if you're trying to emulate that same art style, arriving at those same assets could be quite natural... Or at least, one could claim that, and it would be hard to prove otherwise)... So proving that they're ripped assets would involve more in-depth investigation.

And to be clear, I'm just saying it's probably gonna be a pain for Klei to do anything about this. I'm not trying to defend the mobile game. I'm pretty sure they're guilty there... I just think it will be a pain for Klei to do anything.

The thing is, the sprites are literally identical, they were ripped assets. It's not coincidence. 

Here's the actual Don't Starve rock sprite. Look at the rocks in the Forest Cabin pictures, there's no difference whatsoever.

I think you're also downplaying how unlikely of a coincidence it'd be to have skeletons look so much like the DST ones due to artstyle? They're not super generic skeletons. We're not talking about a stick figure artstyle here, everything you see in a sprite in-game is a conscious decision by an artist and it's extremely unlikely that two people - even two people going for the same thing - will come to an identical conclusion, especially when that conclusion includes things like "let's give the skeleton's skull ears because this game's meant to be a little wacky". 

[AliceShiki]

3 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

I think you're also downplaying how unlikely of a coincidence it'd be to have skeletons look so much like the DST ones due to artstyle? They're not super generic skeletons. We're not talking about a stick figure artstyle here, everything you see in a sprite in-game is a conscious decision by an artist and it's extremely unlikely that two people - even two people going for the same thing - will come to an identical conclusion, especially when that conclusion includes things like "let's give the skeleton's skull ears because this game's meant to be a little wacky". 

I'm not exactly downplaying it. I agree with you that they're probably ripped assets.

I'm just saying that, "it's obviously a rip off" for those assets is probably not good enough for a copyright infringement claim... Which is the annoying part.

[gaymime]

11 hours ago, AliceShiki said:

Definitely not defending the devs of this phone game, but for what it's worth... I don't think stuff like stones and trees can be protected by copyright law due to how generic they are. If you choose a similar art style, you'll naturally arrive at a similar final product in terms of rocks and trees and the like.

The art style is definitely inspired by DS/DST, but Art Style is also not copyrightable to the best of my knowledge...

I think an actual claim against them would require stuff like datamined models and seeing if they mimic Klei's models, because that would mean stolen assets and stuff... But well, that would require a deeper dive into things.

Honestly something that kinda sucks, since it's pretty obviously a ripoff, but proving it is more complicated, sadly.

ok so this is actually very relevant to the job i held for just shy of 16 years and had to deal with personally on two occasions;

the theme of a rock or a tree is NOT relevant on their own. the style however IS relevant as it can cause confusion among customers to the validity of a game. the closer a copy is to the original the more likely that there is intent to cause customer confusion and to make money off of that confusion. this game is very strongly aping klei's intellectual property and loosely aping it's style and is certainly something klei can take to court seeing as this out there making money. you don't need literal copies of png sheets or copy-pasted clumps of code(though that helps a lot in a speedy resolution) to prove someone is doing a copyright violation you just need enough points where the copy and original works line up and clear distinctions on when the copy was made and how likey the creators of the copy were to know the original existed

Edited yesterday at 06:48 AM by gaymime

[AliceShiki]

7 hours ago, gaymime said:

ok so this is actually very relevant to the job i held for just shy of 16 years and had to deal with personally on two occasions;

the theme of a rock or a tree is NOT relevant on their own. the style however IS relevant as it can cause confusion among customers to the validity of a game. the closer a copy is to the original the more likely that there is intent to cause customer confusion and to make money off of that confusion. this game is very strongly aping klei's intellectual property and loosely aping it's style and is certainly something klei can take to court seeing as this out there making money. you don't need literal copies of png sheets or copy-pasted clumps of code(though that helps a lot in a speedy resolution) to prove someone is doing a copyright violation you just need enough points where the copy and original works line up and clear distinctions on when the copy was made and how likey the creators of the copy were to know the original existed

Oh, thanks for clarifying on all that, nice to hear from someone who has experience on the field.

This isn't too far from my expectations, I guess? Like... The stuff about a speedy resolution requiring more damning stuff... It's what's frustrating about all this, I guess. It's kinda obvious ripping DST off, but proving it would naturally be an annoyingly long process.

[gaymime]

4 hours ago, AliceShiki said:

Oh, thanks for clarifying on all that, nice to hear from someone who has experience on the field.

This isn't too far from my expectations, I guess? Like... The stuff about a speedy resolution requiring more damning stuff... It's what's frustrating about all this, I guess. It's kinda obvious ripping DST off, but proving it would naturally be an annoyingly long process.

-nods- 100% it is agonizingly slow, sometimes the best outcome is when the other party is a no-show just because it saves a lot of time : / absolutely abysmal