Video game modification ownership

[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.

[KnightoftheWind]

Nexussisters, we've been decimated...

[rusty_shackleford]

You will own nothing and you will be happy.

[OnTilt]

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.

[KnightoftheWind]

Copyright law cannot even be reformed without breaking international law, apparently. The Berne Convention, which was signed over a century ago I believe, enforces terms of at least life + 50 years. And most countries are Life + 70 years, so they don't even enforce the shorter term. And that STILL begs the question of who the sole creator would be, if the product was a collaborative effort. A book tends to have only one author, but movies, TV shows and video games?. Just counting the director's position most games have more than one, plus writers, art directors, etc. It's a mess.

Copyright should be no more than 15 years after publication. I will always argue for that, no exceptions.

[rusty_shackleford]

I hate IP laws, but it is what it is.

[SoLong]

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 cunts 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 fucking 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.

[rusty_shackleford]

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 cunts 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 fucking 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.

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.

[SoLong]

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

I mean the script used Rocky which is a trademarked character right? That's like a mod using game assets. So yeah, that lawsuit was bound to fail at least in that part.

I think the settlement is odd though. Maybe to avoid having the original script portions be protected in the appeal?

[TKVNC]

Well, Copyright Law is ultimately very opaque and needlessly draconic at times. But that's what you get when your entire legal system is built around ensuring maximum profits. But that's an entirely different argument.

Fair Use protections are interesting, while many will say they don't cover as much as people think they do - nor do they cover the areas people think they cover, that they exist at all is of some interest, surely.

Generally speaking, the chief issue with Fair Use is that it places the onus on -you- as the defendant to prove you have not breached Copyright, rather than asking the Claimant to prove that you were not acting for 'Fair Use'. Why is that a problem? Well, because then they can still succeed in their claim because your defence was not persuasive enough - naturally, the benefit is always on the wronged, not the wronger (is that even a word?).

All that said, however, if Richard Prince can win his case Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) (It's been a while since I had to cite cases, forgive the errors in presentation) - where all he did was slap some new colour and different symbols on things, then really, Fair Use is in a good spot, I'd say. Anyone who argues too hard in favour of Copyright Holders should be viewed with suspicion for being so pozzed that they have an issue with freedoms.

All in all, however, fuck Nexus, I removed all my files from there since they're such dogs - but they can't claim Copyright against you if you never host or share, so make mods anyway. In reality, there's not a single game I play that I haven't personally modded in some way, even if it's as simple as basic texture work, or changing a few item stats. I wouldn't be too worried really though, if they send a C&D, then it's up to you how to act. Generally speaking it's mostly posturing, and not often does it actualise into a real case. Besides, I guess it acts as a litmus test for which companies you should simply stop buying products from.

If they want to be cringeworthy, then they lose customers. Simple, really.

Note- I am legally trained - but NOT in US law. So what I say is based on surface value conclusion after modest research, and nothing more. I make no claim that anything here is correct or true in the USA.

[Decline]

I make no claim that anything here is correct or true in the USA.

Nor do we hold any expectation to the contrary.

[TKVNC]

I make no claim that anything here is correct or true in the USA.

Nor do we hold any expectation to the contrary.

Guess I'm trying to get the Nexus speak out of my system.

[n3IVI0]

ARRRRR.... avast ye scurvy dogs!!

[Xenich]

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.

Yep, and its so bad that many people who create works will often forego patents because they abuse it.

There was this German guy who created crossbows with interesting reloading features. He was asked why he didn't patent them and he said because the entire process is nothing more than handing over your plans to an office which companies immediately steal, then produce the product, pay a fine to the government and the original creator gets screwed. He said he has had more success taking his idea to a company, producing a contract with them and selling it without patent to be the first to market.

All this crap is nothing more than just another scheme by those who brought you usury.

[BobT]

Joerg Sprave, yes.
He also said patenting is pointless unless you have the money to defend it. The big companies who steal your shit are always going to have more money than you do. And that's not counting the complexities of dealing with foreign ones.

[DagothGeas5]

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 cunts 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 fucking 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.

Not sure if this counts, but I recall something with Warcraft (?) where they made an entire game off from a mod, then separated it and made a competitor. I don't think they suceeded, but I recall the company fought hard to get their hands on that.
Found it:


https://gamemaker.io/en/blog/games-that ... el in 2011

Found what my brain was remembering:

Thought it couldn't get worse? The real cherry on top lies in the updates to the EULA. Blizzard updated the terms and conditions to include a clause which gives Blizzard full and exclusive rights to any Warcraft 3 custom games, and forced everyone to agree to it via the update. This is a huge slap in the face to the modding community, full of people who have spent hundreds of hours and used their expertise to create free content for Blizzard's game. Many custom games which are over 10 years old have now been stolen from their creators and dropped right into Blizzard's greedy hands. It seems as if Blizzard's ability to make games has fallen so far they have to hope they can make a fortune off of some modder creating the next DotA.

[Decline]

That's a load of bullshit.
1. These provisions are common place.
2. The EULA was changed in 2010, 10 years before Reforged released as reaction to a competitor (Valve) making DoTA2 and was discussed here: https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/bl ... ps.170065/

[rusty_shackleford]

That's a load of bullshit.
1. These provisions are common place.
2. The EULA was changed in 2010, 10 years before Reforged released as reaction to a competitor (Valve) making DoTA2 and was discussed here: https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/bl ... ps.170065/

Blizzard also ended up retaining a large part of DotA-related IP and are even allowed to use the DotA name themselves iirc. So, if you're Valve rich you might be able to retain, at best, part of the name of your mod… if you're lucky. It's a good example of how little ownership modders have of mods.

[loregamer]

Interesting (for Project Zomboid modding)

https://theindiestone.com/forums/index. ... rmissions/

[Rand]

There was something about a mod for Fallout 4 that was well done and well received that Fallout 4 DLC was suspiciously like.

https://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/fal ... od.206411/

► Show Spoiler

Fallout 4 and especially its DLC has been heavily criticised for using ideas very similar to some found in mods, like New Vegas' "RobCo Certified". The workshop DLCs have been under most fire, but apparently even proper quests in Fallout 4 might have been "heavily inspired" by previously existing mods for Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
Those who played the New Vegas quest mod "Autumn Leaves" and Fallout 4's DLC "Far Harbor" might have noticed that there are some peculiar similarities between the mod and the Far Harbor quest "Brain Dead". On ModDB this also didn't go by unnoticed, with a user providing a handy comparison between the two: http://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leaves ... small-mod/
Both involve new Vaults where the player has to investigate a murder case where the victim is the prime financier of the vault, and all the prime suspects are people who willingly put their brains into robobrain bodies. Both have the option to sleep with one of the suspects, both involve robot interrogation, voice modulators, art discussion, misleading pieces of evidence and a bit more.
If this catches on some more it will likely spark discussions how and if modders and their creations should be protected.
So what's your opinion on this? How should the intellectual properties of modders be protected?


Bethesda's stance on this, btw., is that it's "pure coincidence".

Nothing to see here, folks!

https://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leave ... small-mod/

TL;DR: someone at Bethesda 100% ripped off the "Brain Dead" mod for a Far Harbor quest and Pete Hines either deliberately (or very boneheadedly) lied about it.

[Finarfin]

There was something about a mod for Fallout 4 that was well done and well received that Fallout 4 DLC was suspiciously like.

https://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/fal ... od.206411/

► Show Spoiler

Fallout 4 and especially its DLC has been heavily criticised for using ideas very similar to some found in mods, like New Vegas' "RobCo Certified". The workshop DLCs have been under most fire, but apparently even proper quests in Fallout 4 might have been "heavily inspired" by previously existing mods for Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
Those who played the New Vegas quest mod "Autumn Leaves" and Fallout 4's DLC "Far Harbor" might have noticed that there are some peculiar similarities between the mod and the Far Harbor quest "Brain Dead". On ModDB this also didn't go by unnoticed, with a user providing a handy comparison between the two: http://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leaves ... small-mod/
Both involve new Vaults where the player has to investigate a murder case where the victim is the prime financier of the vault, and all the prime suspects are people who willingly put their brains into robobrain bodies. Both have the option to sleep with one of the suspects, both involve robot interrogation, voice modulators, art discussion, misleading pieces of evidence and a bit more.
If this catches on some more it will likely spark discussions how and if modders and their creations should be protected.
So what's your opinion on this? How should the intellectual properties of modders be protected?


Bethesda's stance on this, btw., is that it's "pure coincidence".

Nothing to see here, folks!

https://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leave ... small-mod/

TL;DR: someone at Bethesda 100% ripped off the "Brain Dead" mod for a Far Harbor quest and Pete Hines either deliberately (or very boneheadedly) lied about it.

I could care less. Bethesda one is better because it ain't gay. Autumn Leaves has a faggot robot that you can have "sexytime" with, whereas Bethesda has a female bot.

[Rand]

How much less could you care?

[Jordy]

How much less could you care?

Give him a break, there's a rule about only using American English. We may as well say 'axe' instead of 'ask' too.

[Finarfin]

How much less could you care?

I couldn't care less, ya nigger.

[rusty_shackleford]

There was something about a mod for Fallout 4 that was well done and well received that Fallout 4 DLC was suspiciously like.

https://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/fal ... od.206411/

► Show Spoiler

Fallout 4 and especially its DLC has been heavily criticised for using ideas very similar to some found in mods, like New Vegas' "RobCo Certified". The workshop DLCs have been under most fire, but apparently even proper quests in Fallout 4 might have been "heavily inspired" by previously existing mods for Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
Those who played the New Vegas quest mod "Autumn Leaves" and Fallout 4's DLC "Far Harbor" might have noticed that there are some peculiar similarities between the mod and the Far Harbor quest "Brain Dead". On ModDB this also didn't go by unnoticed, with a user providing a handy comparison between the two: http://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leaves ... small-mod/
Both involve new Vaults where the player has to investigate a murder case where the victim is the prime financier of the vault, and all the prime suspects are people who willingly put their brains into robobrain bodies. Both have the option to sleep with one of the suspects, both involve robot interrogation, voice modulators, art discussion, misleading pieces of evidence and a bit more.
If this catches on some more it will likely spark discussions how and if modders and their creations should be protected.
So what's your opinion on this? How should the intellectual properties of modders be protected?


Bethesda's stance on this, btw., is that it's "pure coincidence".

Nothing to see here, folks!

https://www.moddb.com/mods/autumn-leave ... small-mod/

TL;DR: someone at Bethesda 100% ripped off the "Brain Dead" mod for a Far Harbor quest and Pete Hines either deliberately (or very boneheadedly) lied about it.

It's not "ripped off" because it's legally theirs. Technically, they could just take mods off of nexusmods and put them right in the game without so much as an attribution required.

[loregamer]

It's not "ripped off" because it's legally theirs. Technically, they could just take mods off of nexusmods and put them right in the game without so much as an attribution required.

At least the PZ devs are mask off about this

[Tweed]

Retards never read the fine print. Bethesda's fine print has always said something to the effect of "It's ours and if we like it, we'll take it, tough titty." and most other fine prints on mods say the same thing.

[rusty_shackleford]

Retards never read the fine print.

It's true. None of you read the fineprint when you signed up.

[loregamer]

Retards never read the fine print. Bethesda's fine print has always said something to the effect of "It's ours and if we like it, we'll take it, tough titty." and most other fine prints on mods say the same thing.

Wish they’d take SkyUI

[Rand]

Retards never read the fine print. Bethesda's fine print has always said something to the effect of "It's ours and if we like it, we'll take it, tough titty." and most other fine prints on mods say the same thing.

Wish they’d take SkyUI

StarUI for that piece of shit Starfield hit the Nexus during the 5 days early access pre-release window.
And it mogged the shit out of the interface that shipped with the full release.

A modder took one look at it, saw it was incompetent low-effort shit, and used Bethesda's own code right out of the game files to massively improve it in three or four four days...

Imagine if you could fire everyone at Bethesda and hire modders.