Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
What are you talking about? All I said of Round Table was that it reminded me of Jump Force.
RWBY - The Hindenburg on which Rooster Teeth rests its hopes, dreams and future
- Thread starter Fougaro
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2013
I mentioned how he used Maya like the main series did, and it somehow manages to look worse than it.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
I think if Monty was still alive it would not be a big of an IP as it is, and the critical feedback would actually... you know, be used. Instead, Monty's death has made the series artificially successful while Miles and Kerry flail and shit themselves everytime there's even an attempt to criticize the show while fans tell folks to fuck off and die.
Maya is industry standard for 3D modeling, it's pretty high end.
though, judging from the comments in this RWBY thread, consensus was Monty used a deeply inferior program for animation, and ether brute forced himself to use it, or didn't want to learn Maya.
Last edited:
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
That sounds pretty backwards. Monty having his own anime/anime esque show was the biggest thing the show had going for it outside of RT since Monty had a reputation through Haloid and Dead Fantasy. How would MOnty still being alive make the RWBY IP be smaller than what it already is?
- Joined
- May 12, 2020
There were rumors that he was going to leave RT and start out fresh, and take his IP with him.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
That'd be a legal battle waiting to happen. Monty was an employee of RT when he made RWBY, which means that RT has always owned RWBY (that's just how IP ownership works in the US). At best, maybe Monty could go off and have his own little production space with Shane, his wife, and any other people Monty thought he worked well with, and RT higher ups don't get into his hair unless the times where they need to.
- Joined
- May 12, 2020
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
Talking to just about anyone at RT that knew Monty would tell you that the man hated change in his work flow. He knew how to get the job done one way, and come hell or high water, hed get the job done his one way. Theres an old ass clip on YouTube where Bernie mentions that during production Montys computer died, and when it was replaced he had an aneurysm because the new computer was running a newer version of windows.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Holy shit. I know the shit about Monty's work ethic may have played a part in causing the events that led to his death, but that makes things sound like that any attempt to change things would fail due to Monty being stubborn as hell.
- Joined
- May 12, 2020
So...in other words, he was a bonafide autist?
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
I didn’t get into RWBY until after Monty died, and I never got into any other RT material, so I don’t think I’m the guy to make that judgment. Ask @Fougaro , they made the OP, maybe they think Monty was on the way to having a thread of his own.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
Monty was definitely autistic to some degree, but he always channeled it into his work. Outside of being a workaholic, I dont think he was the type that needed a thread.
eh, he was saying some pretty lolcow-ish things when it came to defending Rwby from detractors. I am 50/50 on his ego taking over and blowing up into a lolcow.
If he stayed with RT the company culture RT they are fostering right now could have got him, or if he left to do his own thing he could have just go full on crazy trying to finish a project far to large in scope.
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
IP ownership only works that way if he signed the rights away - it isn't implicit like that. It's also really murky as a lot of the character designs/places/concepts are lifted straight out of old public domain storybooks - I don't think there's a ton of super original characters there that RT could sue over if Monty decided to reuse concepts elsewhere (ex - made a new IP that's also based off of fairytales).
There would also be nothing stopping him from leaving the company as "creator, head writer, lead animator of RWBY" and using that to leverage something much better and larger, considering what a horrible time it sounded like working at RoosterTeeth.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Also a lot of those models are literally recoloured Touhou MMD shit. (I.E. Velvet being a brown recolour of Reisen). So that blurs lines even more.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Decided to do some Googling.
Who Owns Intellectual Property Created By Employees? - Intellectual Property - United States
A: It is widely assumed that when someone is hired to create a work product, intellectual property rights will be owned by the hiring party.
www.mondaq.com
Q: Who owns intellectual property created by employees?
A: It is widely assumed that when someone is hired to create a work product, intellectual property rights will be owned by the hiring party.
However, that is not always the case. If there is a written agreement, the details of intellectual property ownership are often spelled out.
Written agreements addressing intellectual property ownership are common, particularly where the employee is hired in a creative capacity. Sometimes, such agreements will take the form of an intellectual property assignment agreement.
In other cases, there may be provisions governing intellectual property ownership within a larger employment agreement.
In the absence of a written agreement addressing ownership, there are default rules that apply. The most common types of intellectual property created by employees are copyright and patent. The default rules under copyright law are different from the default rules under patent law.
Under copyright law, the “work for hire” doctrine governs ownership of copyrightable works created by employees. Under the work for hire doctrine, the employer owns the copyright in an employee’s creative works, including written documents, audiovisual works, graphic art works, software code and others, so long as the work was created within the employee’s scope of employment and the employee is an actual employee, as opposed to someone hired as an independent contractor.
The provisions of copyright law dealing with works for hire created by independent contractors are more complicated.
However, the general rule is that, in the absence of a written agreement, copyright in works created by an independent contractor is owned by the independent contractor.
The default rule for patent ownership, absent a written agreement, is that inventors own the rights in their inventions. This is true for employees and independent contractors.
There is an exception if an employee was “hired to invent” something specific or solve a specific problem. It should be noted that the “hired to invent” doctrine usually does not cover employees that are hired in a technical or creative capacity generally, such as an engineer or product designer.
In cases where the employer does not own an employee-created invention, the employer may still have some limited rights to utilize the invention, known as a “shop right.”
A shop right is an implied license granted to the employer if the invention was created during work hours or with employer funds, facilities or resources.
However, from an employer’s standpoint, rather than attempting to rely on a shop right or assuming that an employee was “hired to invent” something, it is always better to have the employee sign a written intellectual property assignment agreement.
Published in the Union Leader (10/8/201
A: It is widely assumed that when someone is hired to create a work product, intellectual property rights will be owned by the hiring party.
However, that is not always the case. If there is a written agreement, the details of intellectual property ownership are often spelled out.
Written agreements addressing intellectual property ownership are common, particularly where the employee is hired in a creative capacity. Sometimes, such agreements will take the form of an intellectual property assignment agreement.
In other cases, there may be provisions governing intellectual property ownership within a larger employment agreement.
In the absence of a written agreement addressing ownership, there are default rules that apply. The most common types of intellectual property created by employees are copyright and patent. The default rules under copyright law are different from the default rules under patent law.
Under copyright law, the “work for hire” doctrine governs ownership of copyrightable works created by employees. Under the work for hire doctrine, the employer owns the copyright in an employee’s creative works, including written documents, audiovisual works, graphic art works, software code and others, so long as the work was created within the employee’s scope of employment and the employee is an actual employee, as opposed to someone hired as an independent contractor.
The provisions of copyright law dealing with works for hire created by independent contractors are more complicated.
However, the general rule is that, in the absence of a written agreement, copyright in works created by an independent contractor is owned by the independent contractor.
The default rule for patent ownership, absent a written agreement, is that inventors own the rights in their inventions. This is true for employees and independent contractors.
There is an exception if an employee was “hired to invent” something specific or solve a specific problem. It should be noted that the “hired to invent” doctrine usually does not cover employees that are hired in a technical or creative capacity generally, such as an engineer or product designer.
In cases where the employer does not own an employee-created invention, the employer may still have some limited rights to utilize the invention, known as a “shop right.”
A shop right is an implied license granted to the employer if the invention was created during work hours or with employer funds, facilities or resources.
However, from an employer’s standpoint, rather than attempting to rely on a shop right or assuming that an employee was “hired to invent” something, it is always better to have the employee sign a written intellectual property assignment agreement.
Published in the Union Leader (10/8/201
Given the only back and forth between pitching, greenlighting and premiere was Burnie telling Monty "Finish your work on RvB, and then you can make your show", I have to think that we'll only know the relationship and "was it stolen?" aspect clearly if some contract or legal shit leaks.
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
Decided to do some Googling.
Who Owns Intellectual Property Created By Employees? - Intellectual Property - United States
A: It is widely assumed that when someone is hired to create a work product, intellectual property rights will be owned by the hiring party.
Q: Who owns intellectual property created by employees?
A: It is widely assumed that when someone is hired to create a work product, intellectual property rights will be owned by the hiring party.
However, that is not always the case. If there is a written agreement, the details of intellectual property ownership are often spelled out.
Written agreements addressing intellectual property ownership are common, particularly where the employee is hired in a creative capacity. Sometimes, such agreements will take the form of an intellectual property assignment agreement.
In other cases, there may be provisions governing intellectual property ownership within a larger employment agreement.
In the absence of a written agreement addressing ownership, there are default rules that apply. The most common types of intellectual property created by employees are copyright and patent. The default rules under copyright law are different from the default rules under patent law.
Under copyright law, the “work for hire” doctrine governs ownership of copyrightable works created by employees. Under the work for hire doctrine, the employer owns the copyright in an employee’s creative works, including written documents, audiovisual works, graphic art works, software code and others, so long as the work was created within the employee’s scope of employment and the employee is an actual employee, as opposed to someone hired as an independent contractor.
The provisions of copyright law dealing with works for hire created by independent contractors are more complicated.
However, the general rule is that, in the absence of a written agreement, copyright in works created by an independent contractor is owned by the independent contractor.
The default rule for patent ownership, absent a written agreement, is that inventors own the rights in their inventions. This is true for employees and independent contractors.
There is an exception if an employee was “hired to invent” something specific or solve a specific problem. It should be noted that the “hired to invent” doctrine usually does not cover employees that are hired in a technical or creative capacity generally, such as an engineer or product designer.
In cases where the employer does not own an employee-created invention, the employer may still have some limited rights to utilize the invention, known as a “shop right.”
A shop right is an implied license granted to the employer if the invention was created during work hours or with employer funds, facilities or resources.
However, from an employer’s standpoint, rather than attempting to rely on a shop right or assuming that an employee was “hired to invent” something, it is always better to have the employee sign a written intellectual property assignment agreement.
Published in the Union Leader (10/8/201
Given the only back and forth between pitching, greenlighting and premiere was Burnie telling Monty "Finish your work on RvB, and then you can make your show", I have to think that we'll only know the relationship and "was it stolen?" aspect clearly if some contract or legal shit leaks.
We'll never know for certain - but Monty certainly had a large amount of leverage even if RT fully owned RWBY (as much as they can, anyhow, legal issues and all that) which they likely don't.
Even if he had no leverege - IPs aren't iron-clad. You see it in video games all the time - You can't just make a Mega Man game, but you can make Mighty No. 9 or Azure Striker Gunvolt and you can't just release a Castlevania game but you can make and release two version of Bloodstained - Konami doesn't own "vampire shit inside of a spooky castle".
As an aside, but the biggest "forgot/didn't care about the rights of an IP" kerfuffle was Star Wars - of which Lucas retained so much of the rights it made him a multi-billionaire.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
The discussion regarding poser and maya though just shows how inadequate 3D animation still is. No matter how new the program is it still requires a lot of extra effort to actually look passable