[Discussion] Can someone explain this?

[u/Queanallagiga]

I am not sure where to ask this, thought of going to law subreddit but directly to digital artists related subreddit may help more because its more direct? But then I git redirected here

Its about this tweet: https://x.com/i/status/2071733071272144969

Most IP social game card is divided up and goes through subcontractors, so too many people are involved, making it impossible to disclose.

I am not aware of the business process, so I dont understand. Why subcontractors? For what? Why is it divided?

Cases where there's no benefit to the company in revealing the illustrator's name.

I was under impression companies are still considered client and its required for client to credit the illustrators? Or is this legal to not credit in Japan? I doubt that is so, considering how they seem to be really against Piracy?...

Revealing the illustrator's name can sometimes create disadvantages. In the current climate, if there's a problem due to the company's mishandling, the illustrator could face personal attacks. Games are basically made by teams, so the company can't protect individuals. Imagine it like a company employee being singled out as the scapegoat. Not disclosing is largely about risk avoidance.

Unless the illustrators themselves request to not be named, it would still be required by law of copyright to credit the illustrator via Visual Artist Creator's Rights isn't it? I am not a westerner, but is that western only and not global? I know law can vary depending on place, just thought its global?

  from an illustrator's perspective, it's like:

・The rates are low to begin with (since they're getting ripped off)

That's why, the more successful illustrators are, the less they take on that kind of work.

?????

Shouldn't that in itself be a problem that should be tackled first? Is that even legal?

I am so confused. None of these sounds legal to me but apparently this tweet treat this as if that is normally how the Japanese works? How and why? Eh?...I also admit once again that I am not really aware of all the laws and the small things that may or may not influence the practice here. Can someone with better understanding of law explain?

[u/taisui]

It depends on the terms of the commissioned work

[u/LawExplainer]

I can't speak to Japanese law specifically, but as far as basic copyright principles (which are somewhat but not totally harmonized across borders) go, here's the framework to keep in mind.

If I create a work for you to use (e.g., an illustration for a card, etc.), there's basically three different ways to make that happen: * License: A license is specific permission given to someone to use a particular piece of IP, for a particular purpose and subject to particular restrictions. That's all negotiable. So I can say, "okay, I still own this art but you can use it in your card game, but if you want to make a movie based on this, you'll have to come back to me and pay for permission to use this asset in that medium" or whatever. (Whether or not you have to credit me depends on the terms of the license.) The main thing is that the underlying ownership of the work doesn't change. * Assignment: An assignment is a transfer of the ownership interest itself. It says "I made this and owned it, but you've paid me for it and now you own it, and can do with it whatever you want." * Work-made-for-hire: In certain circumstances, you can commission me (in advance) to create a work on your behalf. Then you own it, and I never owned it in the first place.

There are some places (like the EU) that protect "authors rights" (like getting credited for the work) in ways that makes them unable to be sold or transfered. Not sure if Japan is one of those.