An artist who goes by @tofu_rabbit on X says that the look of Nerf’s Ace of Spades handgun from Bungie’s Destiny games came from a commissioned artwork they drew almost a decade ago.
Nerf and Bungie unveiled its newest foam dart gun collaboration on Tuesday featuring a limited edition version of Cayde-6’s iconic “Ace of Spades” blaster from Destiny 2 that is available for purchase on Bungie’s online store. The following morning, @tofu_rabbit posted images comparing Nerf’s newest foam dart launcher to a piece of art they made in 2015 and posted on their DeviantArt page based on the same gun from the game.
Addition: Artists image (from link in article):
I’m curious how this is playing out. A fair number of details are present on the game’s item already. The barrel stripe, the upside-down spade with a circular element, and the barrel spade.
https://destiny.fandom.com/wiki/Ace_of_Spades_(Destiny_2)
That’s not to deny the direct copy of this specific design, but rather ask how much can an independent artist claim on what appears to already largely part of what already exists within the game’s IP.
That being said, the reddit thread where the artist posted this originally has an edit stating Bungie reached out, handled it well, and will be sharing details later.
How can they claim the design is theirs when they based the drawing on design by Bungie?
Companies still shouldn’t steal fanart. If a fan makes something they like, they should work with the fan to make it official in a way that satisfies both parties. The community would love seeing that, and the company would get what they want for a reasonable price, and probably still cheaper than paying their own artists.
A comment lower in the thread says Bungie has reached out to this person, and are handling it well, which sounds great!
It sounds like both parties made derivative works.
The initial design was from Bungie, then someone else made a derivative work from it. Bungie didn’t go after them for it.
Then some artist at Bungie made a derivative work from that work, and the fan artist complained.
Technically, neither party can legally go out and make and distribute derivative works. Probably both were in the wrong there.
The fact that Bungie left the fan art alone, didn’t send lawyers after them initially, doesn’t mean that Bungie has rights to go make and distribute a work based on the fan art.
So, from a purely-legal standpoint, they’ve probably both got grounds for a copyright complaint against the other; Bungie could theoretically have the fan art distribution blocked and the fan artist could block distribution of Bungie’s derived pistol (though not the original, pure-Bungie pistol).
Maybe I just don’t remember how exactly Ace looks in game anymore and the fanart has tome unique take the Nerf company took? I just see Ace of Spades more or less how I remember so that might be why I’m confused
Hoping someone more in the know can explain this to me. Could commissioning an art piece feasibly mean you’ve paid for that art to be yours? Are there types of contracts available when commissioning art pieces where, conceivably, the person commissioning the piece gets the rights to use it for other things?
I’m not across the legal and ethical aspects of commissioning art pieces, and neither the article or the DA post gives any additional detail. Just wondering if the “Josh” who the artist named in their DeviantArt post be someone who was involved in the Nerf gun somehow…
The devil is in the details. Different contracts state different usages.
Often, I’m hired to make things for folk, and they own it entirely. I see these things out in the world, I sometimes see other artists hired to butcher it to fit a new purpose. But that’s OK, I account for that, and often I hand over the source files from the things I make… Layered documents etc.
However, there’s a really disturbing trend of large companies appropriating fan art and claiming that because they own the IP any derivatives belong to them too. This is far ickier.
The main thing though is credit. You’d think that giving a nod to the original artist would be nice. It costs nothing and can have a massive impact on their business.
Yeah the question really is what the contract between the artist and “Josh” states. Without knowing that, its impossible to judge…
Yep, the lawyers will sort it out.
Just curious: This is a toy?
I mean… if a kid holds up this toy to a cop, what would be the most positive outcome?
Edit: I know, karma isn’t a thing here. But could anyone just explain, why I’m getting downvoted for?
It fires and the cop dies.
Most positive.
It depends. How dark is the kid’s skin? Are they in a poor neighborhood?
a nerf gun that fires foam darts. the price is prohibitive enough that no kid is going to feasibly be carting this around under normal circumstances.
I thought the same thing. In the Netherlands it’s not allowed to have realistic looking toy weapons. I basically think that’s a good thing.
All toy guns in the US have an orange tip, you can see this one just in shadow on the end. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been problems with what you are imagining in the past though, not smart to point it at anyone.
Stupid question probably, but what’s stopping actual criminals from putting a bright orange tip on their real guns so they won’t get shot by cops? Pride?
Nothing is stopping them from doing it, which is why when the cops get a report of someone pointing a gun at people they have no choice but to assume it’s real (unless it’s obviously shaped like a super soaker). If the person training their gun-shaped object on passersby points the gun at the cops they usually get shot because the cops aren’t willing to bet their life that it’s not some asshole who put orange acrylic paint on the tip of a real gun.
There are some hobbyists that paint their guns to look like a Nerf gun or a Nintendo gun controller. The general consensus is “it would be stupid to take this out anywhere other than the range”. This is much less common than the opposite: toy or pellet guns that look very realistic.
Presumably because letting the cops know you are defenseless is not what they want to message.
It has an orange end and triggers on it which marks it as a toy gun. So they’d be fine most likely. But it’s still a stupid move.
