Thoughts on converting C2 tiles to C1 artwork style

[Decar]

Seli82's comment is evidence; you might not like the evidence, you might not agree with the evidence.  The evidence may even be questionable.  But none the less it is still evidence.

We just had the case that another CarcF member was quite upset that his creations for one of his expansions were used by a person from the Czech Carcassonne Forum without his permission.

Sie lernen einfach nicht dazu. Da schaut man auf die Internetseite und was findet man die eigene Grafik.
Und jetzt haben sie es schon wieder mit einer Grafik von PresetM so gemacht. 

[Safari]

Please send me the links to these "stolen" expansions - I would like to make things clear. I cannot find any, all was fixed after our discussion over PMs.

It is really rude to abuse someone without any evidence!!! @Decar @danisthirty So give me the evidence or dont say these s**** publicly.

No need for bad words here, I guess. Here are the two expansions in question. Granted, you deleted one of them. The other one is still there. Shall everyone evaluate on their own, if this was using PresetM's graphics without permission or creating a completely new expansion.

Hier mal schnell noch eine andere Sache.

Ich möchte Euch diese beiden Perlen aus dem tschechischen Forum nicht vorenthalten.
Nachfolgend geht es um die 10. Erweiterung:

https://www.carcassonneforum.cz/thread-1352.html

Auf Seite 2 habe ich mal angefragt, wie es denn mit der Genehmigung von HiG dafür sei, die Antworten sprechen für sich selbst.

Und hier klaut man frech meine Graphik der Wachtürme und macht daraus ebenfalls eine Erweiterung (in völlig mieser Graphik übrigens):

https://www.carcassonneforum.cz/thread-1214-post-10045.html#pid10045

Auch hier geben die Antworten (u.a. vom Administrator) einen tiefen Einblick in das Rechtsverständnis der tschechischen Carcassonne-Freunde.

[Elfew]

It is your opinion, our Circus rework for v1 was there much earlier than the one from presetm, anyway my last reply here about these "reworks" because it is pointless. Moreover the download of Chmura's Circus v1 was deleted, only the discussion remains.  We are waiting for the official reply from HiG, we are on the same boat guys...


It is really sad that HiG made this decision (maybe because they wanna more money?!) My advise - release official Circus and Watchtower in the old graphic and you will get a lot of orders... there are thousands users whose prefer old graphic to the new one. My two cents. I hope we (Carcassonne communities) can create one discussion about official reworks in English and find the way how we can collaborate better. It is really difficult to follow 5+ boards about Carcassonne and news from HiG.

[danisthirty]

It is really sad that HiG made this decision (maybe because they wanna more money?!) My advise - release official Circus and Watchtower in the old graphic and you will get a lot of orders... there are thousands users whose prefer old graphic to the new one. My two cents.

removed bold for the sake of my eyesight

I don't believe the question is to do with whether fans of the old artwork would buy these expansions if they were to be released in the old artwork, that is a given. I believe it is more to do with whether these exclusively new artwork only expansions will be enough of a lure to get existing (old artwork) fans of Carcassonne to buy everything again in the new artwork edition so that they can play these expansions without mixing artwork editions (which remains an option). That makes even more money for HiG.

[jungleboy]

I don't believe the question is to do with whether fans of the old artwork would buy these expansions if they were to be released in the old artwork, that is a given. I believe it is more to do with whether these exclusively new artwork only expansions will be enough of a lure to get existing (old artwork) fans of Carcassonne to buy everything again in the new artwork edition so that they can play these expansions without mixing artwork editions (which remains an option). That makes even more money for HiG.

I agree completely.

I'm not sure I want to wade into this discussion, but maybe I'll just hijack the thread instead because I think there's an interesting side note here, based on what you said. When Carcassonne v2 first came out, HiG's position was that you could mix artwork because the tile backs were the same, which struck most of us as a fairly silly way to define compatibility. But it was a pretty necessary position for them to take at the time to get people who had v1 expansions to buy the v2 base game with the abbot/gardens gimmick and be able to play the abbots with the rest of their collection.

But now that the major expansions have already been released in v2 and there is also exclusive v2 material, the official line on mixing art may need to change for economic reasons. Because in the "both versions are compatible" scenario, v1 fans can just buy only the exclusive v2 stuff and mix it with their v1 expansions. But, as you said, they would like v1 fans to repurchase all expansions in v2. So in that way it is now in their best interest to say that you cannot mix the two versions.

[Just a Bill]

But, as you said, they would like v1 fans to repurchase all expansions in v2. So in that way it is now in their best interest to say that you cannot mix the two versions.

Of course in one sense, it doesn't really matter what they say. They can encourage or forbid it all they like, but enforcement is possible only in very limited contexts such as conventions and tournaments. Regardless of the official position, people who want to mix will mix, and people who feel that mixing ruins the game's beauty will not do it. No "official position" is going to change what happens on my dining-room table where this artwork falderal is concerned.

The thing is, now that we know they have officially approved fan-conversions of The Abbot and The Watchtowers, this seems to suggest they are trying to accommodate different players' desires. It really does (for me) re-open the question of why on earth wouldn't they at least consider releasing some of the new gameplay in old artwork form on Cundco? I mean, they can let those of us who dislike the new art convert the gameplay "for free" (production expenses for us, but zero revenue or anti-revenue for them), or they can sell us these tiles in their web store. They have to know that 95% of us would rather spend 5-10 € on real tiles than a potentially comparable amount (and lots of effort) to homebrew our own.

Maybe they're hoping that homebrew effort will force us to actually start playing the C-II versions? If so, it won't work with me, and I suspect I'm not alone. If they really think, in an era when everyone's home printer is basically a magic game component machine, that withholding classic-art versions of new gameplay content is going to force people like me to spend hundreds of dollars re-buying content I've already bought and in a less desirable form ... well, they're just plain wrong about that. It would be economically and aesthetically daft, and I resent being expected to do it.

[Just a Bill]

Not that I want to re-inflame the graphical ownership controversy my little thread touched off, but I have a legitimate question here.

As I understand it, creators of fan-expansions (and presumably those working on CarcII-to-CarcI conversions) are allowed to use all the official Carcassonne graphics. Once HiG approves a II-to-I conversion, wouldn't those graphics be available as well, since they have now entered the domain of officially approved CarcI tiles?

I ask because I had adapted some rock-pile images from the now-official Abbot tiles, cleaned up a couple of layering/isolation glitches they had, and used them in my latest (draft) fan-expansion discussion thread. When this controversy flared up here, I revised those tiles to remove the rocks (the trees I had converted from official tiles)...



... until I could get this question on the table: Do those graphics still belong to whoever originally created/adapted them from other CarcI resources? Or have they entered the realm of official tiles?

I naturally feel it is the latter. (If I were to create tile(s) that HiG made an official part of the CarcI world, I would certainly expect other tile creators to use those images, for the same reasons we all use the "real" roads and cities instead of making our own.) In addition, Safari confirmed that we are allowed to use the now-official CarcI gardens on other projects (although I still want to credit Violet in every case), which seems to be the precedent-setter here.

Please understand I am not saying that every image published on a forum is fair game. I'm only talking about the official Abbot and Watchtowers PDFs approved by HiG.

Thoughts?

[Safari]

Just a Bill, this is a good question. I'm going to ask it also on CarcF...

However, it was not my intention to confirm that we were allowed to use the garden for our own work. I said you should ask Violet, if he has anything against your usage of them. At least this is what I ment the other post. 

[Just a Bill]

However, it was not my intention to confirm that we were allowed to use the garden for our own work. I said you should ask Violet, if he has anything against your usage of them. At least this is what I ment the other post. 

Thanks for that clarification; I thought this post of yours meant that it was already settled:

You even can use the version with the gardens of the approved Abbot conversion. By the way I want to pay credit to CarcF member Violet, who created these wonderful gardens some time ago.

And just so everyone knows, I did send Violet a polite request via PM on CarcF on August 7, but have not yet received a reply.

[Safari]

I thought this post of yours meant that it was already settled:

You even can use the version with the gardens of the approved Abbot conversion. By the way I want to pay credit to CarcF member Violet, who created these wonderful gardens some time ago.

And just so everyone knows, I did send Violet a polite request via PM on CarcF on August 7, but have not yet received a reply.

Oh, no.  I'm so sorry, Just a Bill. Actually this was intended as answer to the question you raised some posts before:

3. As you can see above, I have already replaced my weak attempt at creating a Carc-I garden with one of the excellent new gardens from the officially approved Abbot conversion. Do you think it would be acceptable to post that version to the CarcF forum?

I'm really sorry that I used such a bad wording, which created such a misunderstanding. 

Maybe Violet replies on the weekend. Quite often CarcF is quite silent during the week, but on weekends people start writing and responding.