HakrosTex (Textures pack for classic doom)

[DoomGappy]

1 hour ago, Arrowhead said:

Taking this computer monitor image and slapping it on a silver gradient does not make it 'your texture.' If this is how 'your' textures are created - recycling easily accessible commercial stock images - then, that's not that good - especially in a legal sense.

 

Not like I'm Sherlock Holmes, I literally picked the first random tex I thought would be recognizable. I can check others, too, of course, anyone can - but is there any need to? Does anybody wish to use slightly altered stock images as Doom tex?

 

I know I don't.

 

  Hide contents

 

Also, please don't direct message me - you have a reputation for posting private messages publicly - if you want to address this - finally - you can do so publicly, please.

 

 

 

And w/ this final message, I will not be responding further - for real. I think I've proven my point.

Not to defend him, but I'm curious as to the modification of images available on internet. Wouldn't that type of modification qualify as fair use? Again, not defending him, I just want to know how to proceed when creating new textures and not shoot myself in the foot. 

[Arrowhead]

42 minutes ago, DoomGappy said:

Not to defend him, but I'm curious as to the modification of images available on internet. Wouldn't that type of modification qualify as fair use? Again, not defending him, I just want to know how to proceed when creating new textures and not shoot myself in the foot. 

If it was indeed a modification - essentially, the image is unchanged - and thrown onto another image - even if this skirts illegality (copyright infringement) - it's completely unethical to claim that these are his textures.

 

I could simply crop that image, and poof - I've got a nearly identical copy to the original - there needs to be a transformative alteration, from what I understand - like I said I'm no copyright lawyer - but that's besides the point, because the user immediately below me showed an example that wasn't changed at all - the main point here is the dishonesty about making / owning the textures. Calling the pack HakrosTex and not mentioning anything at all about this essentially just being a stock image collection - is not cool - a lot of Doom stuff is derived works, but they generally do quite well to attribute their sources - sure some stuff gets through, but generally people do not claim things that don't belong to them as their own. He had over a year to mention literally anything about these being mostly untouched stock images.

 

And I'm sure in a pack of 36,000 tex, there's a TON more - but don't take my word for it entirely - open Slade, export as PNG and double-check me. What's going on is certainly morally dubious - if not legally dubious, and I won't be touching this pack because of it.

 

Like you said, you're not defending the situation, I just wanted to make myself more clear. It'd be barely an issue if the majority of these weren't commerical - but a large portion are, per Hakros' words himself.

 

I would just learn to do 100% w/ new material - and not rely on making derivative works.

Edited March 5 by Arrowhead

[OniriA]

1 hour ago, bejiitas_wrath said:

Oh....

 

"Hakrostex^tm"

 

I knew something was fishy about it all, but this just proves the point.

Coming off the whole "Doom AI Awards" episode this seems to have become a pattern sadly.

 

One of dishonesty and 0 integrity it seems. 

If this was a one time thing I'd said I hope you learn from this and be more honest and clear next time but right now I'd rather advice any self-respecting artist to steer clear from doing any business with you.

Edited March 5 by OniriA

[DoomGappy]

59 minutes ago, Arrowhead said:

If it was indeed a modification - essentially, the image is unchanged - and thrown onto another image - even if this skirts illegality (copyright infringement) - it's completely unethical to claim that these are his textures.

 

I could simply crop that image, and poof - I've got a nearly identical copy to the original - there needs to be a transformative alteration, from what I understand - like I said I'm no copyright lawyer - but that's besides the point, because the user immediately below me showed an example that wasn't changed at all - the main point here is the dishonesty about making / owning the textures. Calling the pack HakrosTex and not mentioning anything at all about this essentially just being a stock image collection - is not cool - a lot of Doom stuff is derived works, but they generally do quite well to attribute their sources - sure some stuff gets through, but generally people do not claim things that don't belong to them as their own. He had over a year to mention literally anything about these being mostly untouched stock images.

 

And I'm sure in a pack of 36,000 tex, there's a TON more - but don't take my word for it entirely - open Slade, export as PNG and double-check me. What's going on is certainly morally dubious - if not legally dubious, and I won't be touching this pack because of it.

 

Like you said, you're not defending the situation, I just wanted to make myself more clear. It'd be barely an issue if the majority of these weren't commerical - but a large portion are, per Hakros' words himself.

 

I would just learn to do 100% w/ new material - and not rely on making derivative works.

I understand, just want to be aware of what not to do, since I've made a lot of transformative work with textures, but that demanded a lot of time. Thanks for the reply!

[OniriA]

21 minutes ago, DoomGappy said:

I understand, just want to be aware of what not to do, since I've made a lot of transformative work with textures, but that demanded a lot of time.

 

Thing is, all art is essentially derivative but there's an obvious difference between directly copypasting something and claiming it as your own or giving your own unique spin on it and making it transformative. Something what visual/graphic designers do all the time for example.

 

Now, is copypasting something directly 1 on 1 from third parties a crime? Not necessarily. If it's fair use and as long as you credit the source material and not claim it as your own you're usually fine in that regard. The problem here has been that OP hasn't been transparent in that regard about that, which is unfortunate because if he had then there would be no issue. But even then the problem with directly copy pasting textures from the internet is that you never know if all of it might be fair use or not.

 

Especially if you have thousands of textures..the chance of even 1 of those textures being copyright protected increases alot. And I'm no legal expert in that regard either to delve deeper in that area. Just a simple artist who values integrity, that's all.

Edited March 5 by OniriA

[hakros]

@Arrowhead @OniriA @Dash
 

The license does not specify that attribution is required.

I have purchased the textures and assets that I wanted for my projects from different websites, and this is a project, so what's the problem?

Moreover, I'm not selling the project or the assets, which complies with the terms of the license.

I'm showing you some example screenshots, but I won't show you all, as you can understand.
I spent around €300 on assets, only for you now to brand me as dishonest and a thief.









etc....

Edited March 5 by hakros

[esselfortium]

"Personal use" of a purchased asset generally does not include repackaging and redistributing the asset in a resource pack, whether you're charging for it or not.

 

But more to the point, regardless of the exact license stipulations here, it is just really dishonest to slap your name on a bunch of other peoples' work.

[Arrowhead]

54 minutes ago, hakros said:

The license does not specify that attribution is required.

I have purchased the textures and assets that I wanted for my projects from different websites, and this is a project, so what's the problem?

Moreover, I'm not selling the project or the assets, which complies with the terms of the license.

I'm showing you some example screenshots, but I won't show you all, as you can understand.
I spent around €300 on assets, only for you now to brand me as dishonest and a thief.

So these aren't your textures then? As in, at all?

 

They're all stock, or commercial stock that's been slightly re-purposed? You've still yet to provide any information on which textures you've made, per your own words earlier in this thread.

 

So what if attribution isn't legally required? You've assembled a massive pack of other people's work - and made absolutely no mention of this in your original post. Once again, you had more than a year to make this known, and could have said anything about it to me when I asked you kindly for an update.

 

I don't know how admitting now that you haven't made any from scratch makes this look any better. I'm also not certain that making all this available to the public for free is fine, when the license you posted says for 'personal use'. I don't know how making so many of these commercial textures available to many other people (mostly unaltered) is considered 'personal use'. But like I said, this is morally dubious at best and legally dubious at worst - you want to argue semantics now? Where did I explicitly call you a thief?

 

This is getting silly now.

 

small edit: Also, you've '@' Dash - not 'dasho'. Dash last visited here 14 years ago...

Edited March 5 by Arrowhead

[dasho]

I was just shitposting, but I figured it was obvious to everyone that this doesn't fly. From ArtStation's licensing text:
 

Quote

Subject to this Agreement’s terms and conditions, we hereby grant you a limited, non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable right and licence to (which will be perpetual unless the licence terminates as set out in this Agreement): (a) download the Product; and (b) copy and use the Product. We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you under this Agreement.

 

Quote

You may only share the Product with external people or entities where:

You are collaborating with the external parties in the creation of your Work and you need to share the Product for that purpose, provided that any external party that receives the Product may only use it in your Work and must secure and limit access to the Product for that purpose;

You are working as a contractor for a client in the creation of a Work and need to share the Product with your client, or any external parties working with your client, provided that your client and any such external parties may use the Product only for your client’s Work, and all parties secure and limit access to the Product for that purpose.

For any other use of the Product by any other party, that party must purchase a licence to the Product.

In addition to any other restrictions in this Agreement, you will not:

publish, sell, license, offer or make available for sale or licensing, or otherwise distribute the Product except as part of a Work or through a form of sharing that is authorized in this Agreement; or

publish, distribute or make available the Product through any online clearinghouse platform.

 

Etc, etc. There is no way simple aggregation and redistribution wouldn't fall afoul of this agreement.

Edited March 5 by dasho

[Major Arlene]

even the image optimizer is about 75% someone else's work, but at least that was properly attributed, I think :')

also no one asked you to spend 300 pounds on assets, Hakros. you can make them for free using Material Maker, you don't even have to have Substance Designer. but I know that requires more than an hour of effort, so you'd be allergic to that. maybe just stick to doing things you know you can put the effort into.

[kevansevans]

Even if I couldn't prove it myself, I could smell something was wrong here. Color me not surprised.

 

Hakros, the short and simple of this: Your refusal to put honest work into these things is what's ruining your reputation and reception. You have zero respect for the people whose work you build off of, and zero respect for the people you're aiming it at. Be better.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

3 hours ago, hakros said:

I spent around €300 on assets

That only makes it more embarrassing. You didn't consider the fact that this conversation was bound to occur when you were plopping down €300 on some stock art website?

 

First we have the failed attempt at creating a Cacowards alternative that everybody laughed off because it was nothing but a lazy AI mess, now we have this massive pack of textures you were obviously trying to present as your own work, but it turns out you don't even have the legal right to use these textures.

 

The whole thing feels like watching some noob trying to get popular with the community, but they don't want to/don't have the talent to actually create their own work, so they just use AI and a bunch of assets they bought from a stock art/asset website and hope nobody will notice. The only difference is you've been around for four years, not four days.

 

The only thing dumber than trying to pass off someone else's work as your own is actually paying €300 their work and then trying to pass it off as your own. And on top of that, you didn't even take the time to understand the legality of using the assets you paid for!

 

Hell, now I'm curious if your Doom Launcher or your Pattern Editor is even fully your own work. If it is, that just makes it worse because it shows that you actually have talent but would rather resort to AI, using other people's work, and a lack of transparency.

Edited March 5 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[stylo]

stock photo sites are doing it for the exposure!! an unpaid internship is next

 

 but yeah no this seems sketch. even if you're gonna potentially break the law, be upfront about it, where the stuff comes from, that it ain't yours 

 

'to live outside the law you must be honest' 

[Li'l devil]

Who knew that the creator of a sketchy Doom awards ceremony would do something else sketchy?

[Yugiboy85]

Now now now, let's not all dogpile. I think they got the message (I hope). 

[LuciferSam86]

By the way
 

Quote

 

Stock Assets: For personal use and one Commercial Project

 

I don't think you can even share the assets freely. There is no mention of that in the license.

[Dynamo]

2 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Hell, now I'm curious if your Doom Launcher or your Pattern Editor is even fully your own work. If it is, that just makes it worse because it shows that you actually have talent but would rather resort to AI, using other people's work, and a lack of transparency.

Well, it is worth pointing out that Hakros' software is closed source and also heavily obfuscated, as seen here.

 

As was stated on the Hellforge Discord last year in Hakros' presence:

Quote

FYI, I disassembled Hakros' application. Just gave it a once-over and already it looks VERY suspicious. As you can see, there's a shit-ton of obfuscation, and the little I can understand at a glance I don't like. He's got a lot of explaining to do.

Either that's an attempt at hiding malware from signature-based AVs or there's some super-valuable intellectual property (ew) inside.

 

We cannot know exactly what's going on in this program because an obfuscator was used, and this is not an accusation that could ever be leived at other launchers such as ZDL or Doom Launcher since they are open source and fully viewable. Of course, there is no hard proof of code being stolen by Hakros, and I would sincerely doubt he's put malware into anything, but this is something I felt it was worth informing people of, in light of all that has happened.

[Redneckerz]

5 hours ago, esselfortium said:

"Personal use" of a purchased asset generally does not include repackaging and redistributing the asset in a resource pack, whether you're charging for it or not.

 

But more to the point, regardless of the exact license stipulations here, it is just really dishonest to slap your name on a bunch of other peoples' work.

I mean, its literally in the screenshot. Also paying that kind of dough for assets is... well it isn't illegal but there are a lot better waste to put your money in.

Spoiler

Like the DoomWiki (Shameless plug)

 

 

5 hours ago, hakros said:

@Arrowhead @OniriA

I spent around €300 on assets, only for you now to brand me as dishonest and a thief.

I mean... you are kinda throwing that around, i suppose?

 

But real talk, what are you trying, honestly? From an AI-generated Awards show (with a website that literally had stock emoji's flying around) with a questionable motive, to you buying 100s of bucks on assets (Odd flex but okay) and then passing this off as your own, again with a questionable motive. What is the catch here? Why are you, twice now, getting into trouble over trite shite that you obviously know will get you into trouble?

 

Do you really want people to doubt every your motive? Should i doubt your software aswell and assume its just a glorified Powershell script with a GUI bolted on top purchased from Bob The Builder?

 

You want to help the community? Be honest. Stop being questionable. The bolded is short enough for you to understand regardless of language barrier.

 

2 hours ago, Yugiboy85 said:

Now now now, let's not all dogpile. I think they got the message (I hope). 

They didn't get the message the first time even when presented with massive amounts of evidence (The Doom Awards).

 

So for Hakros to come in here and blatantly state they purchased the assets (and then re-released them for free, which sounds like a good deal but isn't part of the license) feels like a trick is at play, language barrier and all.

 

When i saw this thread i kept my reservations but its sad to see this develop once more into something unattainable.

[Ravendesk]

6 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

From an AI-generated Awards show (with a website that literally had stock emoji's flying around) with a questionable motive, to you buying 100s of bucks on assets (Odd flex but okay) and then passing this off as your own, again with a questionable motive

Just wanted to point out that your chronology is wrong, this topic is from 2022.

[Redneckerz]

Just now, Ravendesk said:

Just wanted to point out that your chronology is wrong, this topic is from 2022.

I stand corrected.

[knifeworld]

After the "doom awards" AI slop, I'm really not surprised to hear that the same guy compiled a pack of stolen textures.

[blueyosh43]

If he took the time to collect, optimize, and package these textures together, I don't see what's so controversial about calling it "his" texture pack. 

[LuciferSam86]

27 minutes ago, blueyosh43 said:

If he took the time to collect, optimize, and package these textures together, I don't see what's so controversial about calling it "his" texture pack. 

Because the license given from the platform where he bought the textures doesn't allow the redistribution of said assets 

[Doom-X-Machina]

18 hours ago, hakros said:

I spent around €300 on assets, only for you now to brand me as dishonest and a thief.

Who else is going to spend 300 euro like you did when they can just get it from you for free?
That's literal textbook piracy. Whether you're making a profit or not, it's illegal.

[Stupid Bunny]

5 hours ago, blueyosh43 said:

If he took the time to collect, optimize, and package these textures together, I don't see what's so controversial about calling it "his" texture pack. 

 

The first post never, ever stated anywhere that the textures are originally made by someone else.  If I compiled a bunch of other people's maps, retextured them a bit, claimed them as my own work with no accreditation whatsoever while demanding credit for them from everyone else (implying that they are 100% my own creation, which is nowhere near true), and then only explained that someone else had made the base maps after being confronted about it, that wouldn't be cool, even if they did give permission to use them as a base for modification.  Setting aside the points made about fair use and the legality of this in prior posts, which are rather persuasive, doesn't this strike you as being extremely dishonest and deceptive at the very least?  Don't you think the work involved compiling and "optimizing" stuff is significantly, massively less than the work in actually creating it in the first place?

[Li'l devil]

Did you know that all maps in Maximum Doom were made by id Software? After all, they compiled them all and released.

[Vosolokoviteh]

Hakros procesos de creacion de texturas:

* NotSoBot Discord comando .edit Enviar

* O en este caso lamentable y denigrante que demuestra tu gran mediocridad. Gastar una cantidad de plata en literal cosas que TU no hiciste, y luego redistribuirlas para ponerles tu nombre "Hakros Texture Pack"

 

Mejor abre el paint y ahi haz algo desde 0

 

[OniriA]

I can't wait to see what episode 3 will be about in the exciting story of Hakros' Doom machinations.

 

Should stack up on some taco chips for that.

[Vosolokoviteh]

6 minutes ago, OniriA said:

I can't wait to see what episode 3 will be about in the exciting story of Hakros' Doom machinations.

  

Should stack up on some taco chips for that.

[DankMetal]

HOLA HAKROS SOY FANS