Modern Warships Admits Using Artist's Ekranoplan Design Without Clearance

Modern Warships developer Artstorm has publicly acknowledged that an in-game vehicle was created using an independent artist's design as reference without receiving permission first. The disputed craft, an unusual aircraft-and-ship hybrid known as an ekranoplan, appears to closely resemble a concept produced by artist Alex Jay Brady in 2014.

The situation has attracted attention not simply because of the apparent similarity, but because the vehicle was introduced as a premium item in a free-to-play naval combat game. Players can apparently pursue it through gacha-style spins for a substantial cost, while an outright purchase can reach as much as $700. Artstorm has not announced that it will remove the item. Instead, it has said it plans to contact Brady directly and make the matter right.

An old concept design at the center of the dispute

Brady, a concept artist who shares design work on social media, posted the original ekranoplan concept more than a decade ago. An ekranoplan is a ground-effect vehicle: a machine intended to travel extremely close to the surface of water, using aerodynamic effects that make it something of a middle ground between a ship and an aircraft.

Embedded X/Twitter post

Embedded X/Twitter post

The concept in question imagines a dramatic military vehicle with a broad flight deck, wings and engines. It is a striking piece of speculative design, but Brady has since explained that it was not based on a realistic or practical military proposal. In fact, the artist said several aspects were functionally nonsensical.

For useful background on this topic, read Jagex Reconsiders RuneScape Reignited After Veteran Players Reject Account Reset Fears.

After the comparable vehicle appeared in Modern Warships, Brady said that no permission had been granted for the use of the design. At the same time, the artist noted that the game's rendition was much more detailed than the original sketches and made clear that a straightforward request and compensation could have avoided a dispute.

Brady later expanded on the similarities, saying the Modern Warships vehicle retained nearly every major detail from the concept beyond relatively minor changes. The artist's assessment is particularly significant because the design is not a broadly established real-world craft with a conventional layout. Brady said there has never been a swing-wing ekranoplan carrier, adding that there are good reasons such a vehicle does not exist.

The copied mistakes make the comparison more conspicuous

For Brady, the most telling part of the situation is that the game version appears to preserve elements that were mistakes in the initial imagined design. The artist said the engines would wash across the deck and that aircraft would take off backward rather than into the wind. Those details are not merely stylistic flourishes; they are practical problems that emerged because Brady did not have deep subject knowledge when creating the original work.

That makes the resemblance harder to frame as two artists independently arriving at a similar silhouette. Ekranoplans themselves are uncommon enough in games and popular culture, while an aircraft-carrier-style swing-wing variation is more distinctive still. When the same questionable operational details migrate from a concept drawing into a commercial game asset, the case for direct visual reference becomes much stronger.

Concept art is often designed to communicate mood, scale and possibilities rather than serve as an engineering blueprint. That does not lessen its value. A sketch can be rough, impractical or deliberately exaggerated while still being a creator's original expression. If a studio uses that expression as the foundation for a sellable digital item, permission and compensation are central concerns.

Artstorm's public response is an unusually direct admission

Rather than disputing Brady's claim, Artstorm responded publicly with an apology. The developer said the design had been used as a reference without proper clearance and described the criticism as fair. It also stated that it would contact Brady directly to resolve the situation.

"Your design was used as a reference without proper clearance," Artstorm told Brady in its public response, while apologizing and promising direct contact.

That wording is notable because companies facing allegations over visual similarities often offer a more guarded response, or avoid commenting while legal and business teams review the matter. Here, Artstorm's statement accepts the core point: the work was used as reference, and the required clearance was not obtained.

However, an admission and an apology are only the beginning of a remedy. There is no public information yet on what kind of agreement may be offered, whether Brady will be compensated for past use, whether the artist will receive credit, or whether the vehicle's sale will change while discussions take place. There is likewise no indication that players who have already spent money pursuing the item will see any effect from the dispute.

Artstorm's choice to seek a deal rather than immediately pull the vehicle leaves several possibilities open. The company could license the design retroactively, reach a private compensation agreement, alter the vehicle substantially, add attribution, or take another approach agreed upon by both parties. Until either side shares more, the exact outcome remains uncertain.

A premium sale raises the stakes

The commercial context makes this case more uncomfortable than a brief resemblance in an unused promotional image. Modern Warships is a free-to-play PvP naval game, and the ekranoplan was presented as an item players could obtain through monetized systems. Estimates place the cost of chasing it through gacha spins at roughly $50 to $100, depending on luck and spending, while buying it outright can reportedly cost up to $700.

That price structure means a design originating as an independent artist's online concept was potentially being used to help drive substantial revenue. Even if only a limited number of players buy the vehicle at the highest price, the question is no longer only whether an image was copied. It is also whether a company monetized another creator's work without first securing the right to do so.

The situation is a reminder that "reference" can be a loaded term in commercial art production. Artists routinely study real machines, historical material, technical documentation and visual references. Those practices are important. But using another artist's unique speculative arrangement, distinctive shapes and even creative mistakes as a direct template is a different matter from studying a general category of vehicle.

Why this matters beyond one fictional war machine

Digital art moves rapidly through public feeds, portfolio sites and image-sharing platforms. That access gives creators a way to show work to prospective clients and fans, but it also makes it easy for concepts to travel far beyond their intended audience. In games, where large asset pipelines require constant production, a compelling visual can be passed between departments and transformed into a finished model before questions about authorship are properly asked.

Studios therefore need clear review procedures for outside references. Teams should be able to identify where an idea originated, determine whether the reference is licensed or public domain, and understand when a design is specific enough that it cannot be treated as generic inspiration. Those safeguards are especially important when the resulting asset is attached to paid packs, randomized reward systems or other recurring monetization.

For independent artists, the case also illustrates the importance of maintaining portfolios, dated posts and original files. Brady's 2014 concept and public record of the work provide a clear timeline for comparing the artist's design with the in-game craft. Documentation does not prevent misuse, but it can make an artist's claim easier to establish when a dispute occurs.

Modern Warships is published by Gaijin, the company associated with War Thunder. The controversy arrives in a competitive naval-combat space where presentation, vehicle design and collectible premium hardware play a major role in attracting players. That makes the handling of a high-profile visual asset particularly consequential.

What comes next

The immediate question is whether Artstorm's promise to make things right turns into a satisfactory outcome for Brady. A public acknowledgment is more than many artists receive when their work is allegedly copied, but the details will determine its value. Compensation, terms of use, attribution and the future status of the in-game vehicle all remain unresolved.

There is also a broader issue for players. People who spend on premium digital items expect studios to have the rights needed to sell what is being offered. When a developer admits that its reference process failed, it can damage confidence in both the item and the systems used to bring it into the game.

Brady's initial response left room for an amicable resolution: the artist said the use would not have been a problem if the developer had asked and paid. Artstorm has now publicly recognized that it should have done exactly that. Whether the company follows through in a way that properly respects the original creator will be the next--and most important--part of the story.