Modern Warships Developer Apologizes After Ship Design Is Linked to Independent Artist's Work

Modern Warships developer Artstorm has acknowledged that an in-game vessel was based on an independent artist's work without securing the appropriate permission. The issue centers on the RF Bartini A-2000-7, a high-profile ship design in the free-to-play naval combat game, and concept art created by artist Alex Jay Brady.

The similarity drew widespread attention after Brady shared a comparison between their original design and the version that appears in Modern Warships. Brady's artwork depicts an atomic ekranoplan carrier vessel: a large ground-effect craft concept combining unusual aviation and naval design ideas. The game's RF Bartini A-2000-7 appears to carry over many of the artwork's most distinctive visual decisions, leading to sharp criticism from players and artists online.

Artstorm has since apologized publicly and said the work had been used as a reference without proper clearance. The developer stated that it would contact Brady directly in an effort to resolve the matter. Brady, meanwhile, has indicated that they are waiting to see what proposal is made before deciding whether the matter has been adequately settled.

Embedded X/Twitter post

A distinctive fictional vessel becomes the focus of the dispute

At the center of the controversy is not simply a broad resemblance between two military-inspired vehicles. Brady's design is an especially specific take on an ekranoplan carrier, including its layout, wing configuration, deck arrangement, engine placement, and other visual elements. In the side-by-side images shared by the artist, the Modern Warships model has the same overall silhouette and a number of matching details, albeit with some alterations.

For useful background on this topic, read Dawn of War 4 Details the Space Marines' Elite, Flexible Battlefield Role.

Brady said that, from their perspective, the game design is fundamentally the same creation with relatively minor changes. They pointed to differences including the placement of the airborne early warning and control, or AWACS, dishes, the inclusion of two dishes, and changes to the engines. But the artist argued that the remaining details closely follow the original concept.

The unusual subject matter makes the comparison more notable. An ekranoplan is a vehicle designed to travel very close to the surface of water or land by taking advantage of ground effect, producing a craft that sits somewhere between an aircraft and a ship. A swing-wing ekranoplan carrier is not a conventional or established real-world vessel class. That leaves fewer obvious historical references that might otherwise explain why two designs independently arrived at the same collection of eccentric visual choices.

Brady said their own concept was not built as a rigorous realistic military proposal. They acknowledged that the vessel contains practical flaws, such as engines producing wash across the deck and aircraft appearing to launch in a direction that would not make operational sense. Those quirks, the artist argued, were replicated along with the broader visual concept.

"Fair call, and apologies from us," Artstorm said in its public response. "Your design was used as a reference without proper clearance. We'll contact you directly to make this right."

Artist says a direct agreement could close the matter

Although the public reaction has been forceful, Brady has not presented the situation as beyond repair. The artist said they could regard the dispute as resolved, and include the images in their portfolio as a roundabout form of contract work, if Artstorm accepts an offer that appropriately addresses the use of the design.

That position puts the next step squarely on the developer's proposed terms. Artstorm's apology confirms that it recognizes a clearance failure, but it does not yet spell out what compensation, licensing arrangement, credit, changes to the in-game model, or other remedy could be involved. No agreement between the parties has been publicly detailed.

The case also highlights a recurring tension in game development, particularly in projects that need a large number of weapons, vehicles, environments, skins, and other visual assets. Reference gathering is a normal part of creative production. However, using a creator's highly recognizable work as the basis for a commercial asset can cross an important line when no permission or license is in place.

For independent artists, the distinction is especially significant. Concept work is often shared publicly to build a portfolio, find clients, and participate in communities built around speculative design. Public availability does not automatically make an image available for commercial adaptation. Artists retain rights in their original work, and professional use normally requires a discussion about permission, payment, and terms.

The RF Bartini A-2000-7 carries a substantial in-game value

The dispute has drawn additional attention because the RF Bartini A-2000-7 is not portrayed as a disposable background asset. It is a ship players can pursue through Modern Warships' progression and monetization systems, and obtaining it can involve significant spending.

Players may attempt to unlock the carrier through gacha spins, with reported spending in the range of roughly $50 to $100. The ship can also be acquired using ArtCoins, the game's in-game currency. Its market value has reportedly averaged from around 7,000 AC to more than 15,000 AC, depending on market conditions.

Using the commonly cited value range for ArtCoins, that can make the effective cost of a ship priced around 10,000 AC several hundred dollars. Estimates place 1,300 to 2,000 AC at about $100, meaning a 10,000 AC vessel could theoretically represent approximately $500 to $700 or more, with variation based on changing market prices.

That context has amplified criticism of the situation. Players are not merely looking at a questionable reference in free promotional art or an unused prototype. The design is attached to a valuable item in a live-service game, where some players may have spent considerable sums to obtain it.

Modern Warships has already faced negative feedback from some Steam users over its free-to-play business model and the perceived cost of highly effective ships. Reviews have included complaints that the game places revenue generation ahead of competitive balance and a satisfying experience. The acknowledgement involving the Bartini design adds a separate concern around creative attribution to those broader discussions of value and monetization.

Why the visual details matter

In creative disputes, a general premise is not necessarily enough to prove that one work was copied from another. Naval fiction, alternate-history military hardware, futuristic carriers, and oversized aircraft concepts are all familiar territory for artists and game designers. The concern becomes more serious when a work appears to reproduce a particular artist's expression of those ideas rather than independently approaching the same premise.

Brady's comments focus on precisely that issue. The artist did not argue ownership over the very idea of an ekranoplan carrier. Instead, they emphasized that the game model appears to replicate the individual arrangement of features and even the concept's implausible technical decisions. In that framing, the shared mistakes are as revealing as the shared strengths.

The changes Artstorm made to the game asset may matter in any private settlement or legal analysis, but they have not prevented the model from being widely identified as a close adaptation. Artstorm's response also avoids disputing the basic claim. By saying the work had been used as a reference without clearance, the studio accepted the central criticism rather than presenting the resemblance as coincidence.

A test of what comes after an apology

Public acknowledgements are an important first step in disputes involving artists' work, but the eventual outcome will depend on the private conversation that follows. Brady has left room for a constructive resolution. Artstorm has said it intends to make things right. The unresolved question is what that means in practical terms for a design already included in a commercial game and connected to a premium virtual item.

A resolution could potentially involve compensation and recognition, though neither party has publicly confirmed any specific terms. It is also unclear whether the RF Bartini A-2000-7 will be altered, removed, renamed, retained under an agreement, or handled in another way. Until Artstorm and Brady reach a deal, those details remain uncertain.

For players, the incident is a reminder that the striking hardware featured in military games is often the product of individual creative labor, even when it is presented as part of a large live-service catalog. For developers, it underlines the need for clear internal processes around references, outsourcing, asset approval, and rights clearance before content reaches players.

Artstorm's apology has moved the discussion from denial toward resolution. Whether that resolution satisfies the artist, and whether it leads to a clearer public accounting of the ship's future in Modern Warships, remains to be seen.