Video game modification ownership

[J1M]

Hmmmm. I've gotten curious. Has there ever been a case were a company tried to take ownership of a mod (art assets or code or whatever) and sold or used it themselves?

The only actual IP legal cases I've ever taken a closer look at was the Star Control: Origins debacle were Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford were absolute ***** who sat around with their thumbs up their asses for over two decades while someone else bought the Star Control trademark only to then freak out when his company actually did something with the IP.

I think there was a settlement in the end because both parties would lose and Reiche and Ford had to surrender the trademark while Stardock (the company) wouldn't use any of the storylines or character names of the first games (they can apparently still use the race names). Which all things considered wouldn't matter because few people would still be able to recall any meaningful details after more than two full decades (I still can't get over the fact that these two idiots watched a ******* bankruptcy auction where someone else bought the IP rights and did nothing for the next 25 years).

None of that relates to modding though since this was technically two companies duking it out. Which might be the crux of the matter: The entire argument about mods automatically being infringing seems to be less a legal argument than "Enforcing fair use is expensive!".

No wonder that German botting company exploited so many loopholes to kick Blizzard in the balls.

Companies have taken mods and incorporated them into products that they have then sold. They don't need to go to court to own what they already own.

[Unhelpful Contrarian]

I understand that from a practical standpoint this information is useful. I just don't care.

The irony is that copyright law initially was meant to protect individuals against companies and now it exists for the exact opposite.

Gotta thank good old Disney for the bastardization of copyright law original purpose.

[SpellSword]

Reminds me of the Game Genie derivative works lawsuit. (10:28)

[Vergil]

You will own no mods and you will be happy.

[loregamer]

[loregamer]

What's hilarious about this btw

[logincrash]

Elaborate.

[loregamer]

Elaborate.

Mod author made a mod called AutoExercise. It overrides a vanilla function that is essentially "doTheExercise()". Another mod also overrides this function to prevent the game from unequipping your backpack when exercising (highly annoying since it resets your backpack attachments and hotbar everytime), i.e. Exercise with Gear.

I made a patch to restore the change made so the two mods can work together (Auto Exercise - Exercise with Gear). Author of AutoExercise now threatening me with a DMCA

[logincrash]

Elaborate.

Mod author made a mod called AutoExercise. It overrides a vanilla function that is essentially "doTheExercise()". Another mod also overrides this function to prevent the game from unequipping your backpack when exercising (highly annoying since it resets your backpack attachments and hotbar everytime), i.e. Exercise with Gear.

I made a patch to restore the change made so the two mods can work together (Auto Exercise - Exercise with Gear). Author of AutoExercise now threatening me with a DMCA

>i can file dmca
What a ******.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Elaborate.

Mod author made a mod called AutoExercise. It overrides a vanilla function that is essentially "doTheExercise()". Another mod also overrides this function to prevent the game from unequipping your backpack when exercising (highly annoying since it resets your backpack attachments and hotbar everytime), i.e. Exercise with Gear.

I made a patch to restore the change made so the two mods can work together (Auto Exercise - Exercise with Gear). Author of AutoExercise now threatening me with a DMCA

What a ***.

[loregamer]

Hmm...

Serana Dialogue Add-On

[rusty_shackleford]

Hmm...

Serana Dialogue Add-On

No, that's not how copyright works. The work is taken as a whole, it does not function without the game and the original lines(text)/character are Bethesda's property, it's an unauthorized derivative work.

[loregamer]

Hmm...

Serana Dialogue Add-On

No, that's not how copyright works. The work is taken as a whole, it does not function without the game and the original lines(text)/character are Bethesda's property, it's an unauthorized derivative work.

If the mod were actually good, I would use my ElevenLabs Batch Tool to change it back to Laura Bailey's voice.

Unfortunately, the mod is terrible and I'd only be doing it out of spite

[rusty_shackleford]

An example of where copyright would be retained by the modder is e.g., a texture pack. If we assume that it is all original textures created by the author of the modification and it can exist as a standalone work(as a texture pack would), that is.

It would be impossible to create something like that mod, even if they were newly written lines, and not be a derivative work as the character itself is Bethesda's IP. Even mods that add new companions are derivative works as they were created to exist in a world that is owned by Bethesda.

[rusty_shackleford]

Until the precedent set by this case gets overturned you should assume that anything based off of someone else's IP is derivative, and without their permission, unauthorized:

Only thing close to this I can think of off the top of my head is the Rocky lawsuit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

Rocky IV was created using a script that was an unauthorized derivative work. The author of the script sued and lost.

Especially relevant:

Anderson attempted to argue that Congressional history of 17 U.S.C. section 103(a) indicates that Congress intended non-infringing portions of derivative works to be protected. The Court disagreed, citing legal scholarship (copyright law professors Melville and David Nimmer) and case law interpretations of 103(a).

[Oyster Sauce]

Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in RPGHQ's privacy policy. I do not give RPGHQ or any entities associated with RPGHQ permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to RPGHQ it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents.

Better to be safe than sorry. An attorney advised us to post this. Good enough for me. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: RPGHQ is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tacitly understood that you are allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates. I HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION."

I do not give RPGHQ or any entities associated with RPGHQ permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to RPGHQ it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute).

NOTE: RPGHQ is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste

[loregamer]

Just found out that BG3 Modder's Multitool is copyrighted

[loregamer]

Is plusnigger gone? @rusty_shackleford Should I still use it on my repos?

https://plusnigger.org

[rusty_shackleford]

Is plusnigger gone? @rusty_shackleford Should I still use it on my repos?

https://plusnigger.org

Still valid and funny

[rusty_shackleford]

Professor Nimmer also interprets the House Report language as generally denying copyright protection to any portion of an unauthorized derivative work. After setting forth some of the language from the House Report regarding section 103(a) he states,

the effect [of section 103(a) ] generally would be to deny copyright to derivative works, in which the pre-existing work tends to pervade the entire derivative work, but not to collective works, where the infringement arises from the copying of the selection and arrangement of a number of pre-existing works, and not per se from the reproduction of any particular prior work

1 M. Nimmer, § 3.06, pgs. 3–22.3 thru 3–22.4.

[logincrash]

Professor Nimmer also interprets the House Report language as generally denying copyright protection to any portion of an unauthorized derivative work. After setting forth some of the language from the House Report regarding section 103(a) he states,

the effect [of section 103(a) ] generally would be to deny copyright to derivative works, in which the pre-existing work tends to pervade the entire derivative work, but not to collective works, where the infringement arises from the copying of the selection and arrangement of a number of pre-existing works, and not per se from the reproduction of any particular prior work

1 M. Nimmer, § 3.06, pgs. 3–22.3 thru 3–22.4.

Professor ******

[Rand]

A mod is owned by whoever has it on their storage drive at the moment.

[Rand]

This does not constitute legal advice.

If you're curious about ownership of video game modifications, as this has come up a lot lately, I'd suggest speaking with a lawyer. Despite that, I thought I'd use this thread to present some material that will help people understand the legal situation of mods:
https://kblroche.com/thinking-before-mo ... 26399.html
Author:

Daniel is a Bavarian in New York, a German born in Cleveland, and an American raised in Munich. His practice originated in the video game space founded on his passion for creators from the entertainment, media, and tech space. First he moved to New York for a degree for that nudge on his CV, now he travels between Europe and New York while counseling international creators and businesses.
Fields of Practice: Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Media, Digital and Tech, International Commercial Law, Business and Corporate Law, and Startups.
Education: Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York.

Making a Mod infringes on the Exclusive Right of the Copyright Holder to make Derivative Works

Let’s get the bad news (or good news depending on who you are) out of the way: Modding is copyright infringement as a matter of course. On its face. Period.

---

I think to some degree the reason for the lack of understanding is people have the notion that they own the games they purchase a license to. Even videos about video games are at the mercy of the IP holders.

All this assumes that I recognize IP and patent law as valid, and I largely don't.

Author: "I wrote this and you can pay me to read it but don't you dare write anything remotely similar because that's unfair competition and I'll go running to government goons to whine in a special room like a giant pussy until they tell you to stop and give me more money."
Corporation: "Yeah, what he said. And also, now nobody really owns a corporation and it's just a group of assholes looking to get money, but it's also a person and can own things. Except even more than people and forever, apparently. So don't dare threaten to compete with us. We can steal from you and the public domain, however, because we can afford to hire lawyers until the end of time."

Once upon a time you could simply challenge assholes like these to a duel and kill them for their ****** behavior and be done with it.

[rusty_shackleford]

This does not constitute legal advice.

If you're curious about ownership of video game modifications, as this has come up a lot lately, I'd suggest speaking with a lawyer. Despite that, I thought I'd use this thread to present some material that will help people understand the legal situation of mods:
https://kblroche.com/thinking-before-mo ... 26399.html
Author:

Daniel is a Bavarian in New York, a German born in Cleveland, and an American raised in Munich. His practice originated in the video game space founded on his passion for creators from the entertainment, media, and tech space. First he moved to New York for a degree for that nudge on his CV, now he travels between Europe and New York while counseling international creators and businesses.
Fields of Practice: Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Media, Digital and Tech, International Commercial Law, Business and Corporate Law, and Startups.
Education: Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York.

Making a Mod infringes on the Exclusive Right of the Copyright Holder to make Derivative Works

Let’s get the bad news (or good news depending on who you are) out of the way: Modding is copyright infringement as a matter of course. On its face. Period.

---

I think to some degree the reason for the lack of understanding is people have the notion that they own the games they purchase a license to. Even videos about video games are at the mercy of the IP holders.

All this assumes that I recognize IP and patent law as valid, and I largely don't.

Author: "I wrote this and you can pay me to read it but don't you dare write anything remotely similar because that's unfair competition and I'll go running to government goons to whine in a room until they tell you to stop and give me more money like a giant pussy."
Corporation: "Yeah, what he said. And also, now nobody really owns a corporation and it's just a group of assholes looking to get money, but it's also a person and can own things. Except even more than people and forever, apparently. So don't dare threaten to compete with us. We can steal from you and the public domain, however, because we can afford to hire lawyers until the end of time."

Once upon a time you could simply challenge assholes like these to a duel and kill them for their ****** behavior and be done with it.

Buddy




I gotta follow the law

[Stack of Turtles]

This does not constitute legal advice.

If you're curious about ownership of video game modifications, as this has come up a lot lately, I'd suggest speaking with a lawyer. Despite that, I thought I'd use this thread to present some material that will help people understand the legal situation of mods:
https://kblroche.com/thinking-before-mo ... 26399.html
Author:

Daniel is a Bavarian in New York, a German born in Cleveland, and an American raised in Munich. His practice originated in the video game space founded on his passion for creators from the entertainment, media, and tech space. First he moved to New York for a degree for that nudge on his CV, now he travels between Europe and New York while counseling international creators and businesses.
Fields of Practice: Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Media, Digital and Tech, International Commercial Law, Business and Corporate Law, and Startups.
Education: Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York.

Making a Mod infringes on the Exclusive Right of the Copyright Holder to make Derivative Works

Let’s get the bad news (or good news depending on who you are) out of the way: Modding is copyright infringement as a matter of course. On its face. Period.

---

I think to some degree the reason for the lack of understanding is people have the notion that they own the games they purchase a license to. Even videos about video games are at the mercy of the IP holders.

All this assumes that I recognize IP and patent law as valid, and I largely don't.

Author: "I wrote this and you can pay me to read it but don't you dare write anything remotely similar because that's unfair competition and I'll go running to government goons to whine in a room until they tell you to stop and give me more money like a giant pussy."
Corporation: "Yeah, what he said. And also, now nobody really owns a corporation and it's just a group of assholes looking to get money, but it's also a person and can own things. Except even more than people and forever, apparently. So don't dare threaten to compete with us. We can steal from you and the public domain, however, because we can afford to hire lawyers until the end of time."

Once upon a time you could simply challenge assholes like these to a duel and kill them for their ****** behavior and be done with it.

Corporations are people and they're the best people.

[Rand]

Buddy




I gotta follow the law

Until you change it.
We need to change it.
It's ******* bad for everyone except a few assholes.

[Rand]

Copyright law cannot even be reformed without breaking international law, apparently.

Awesome!
Another great reason to do it!
International law is an anti-national flaming dumpster fire of ****, by ****, for Jewishness.

[Niggler]

I *** ume that even if I make, say, my own original outfit mod without using assets in game, like a nazi uniform just for the **** of it, it still ain't mine and anybody can do what they want with it? Sorry if I don't understand lawspeak that well...