Copyright Infringement- What IS and What ISN'T?

[KoolHndLuke]

I always wanted to try and put some classic cars in FO4 like a Camaro or a Mustang for props, but I'm not sure if that's all legally and stuff. What are some instances where you might be violating copyright? I mean, how close does it have to be to the original to be infringement (stealing)? It's not that I want to steal anything because the way I see it, they are either more like cultural icons or you are giving them free advertising. What do you think?

[Strawman]

If you are using it for private use It should be fine, even if you are going to publicly release the mod, unless it gets big enough.

And even if they take notice of the mod they will likely just tell you to take it down rather than pursue legal action because it is costly and there really is little benefit in doing so.

 

If you want to know what is or is not legal, you should be able to change certain aspects of the cars and remove the logos as a safety net, but if the companies do not like it or you they will proceed to remove it regardless because copyright law is extremely gray and really only favors the person with the most money and influence.

 

Besides for them to pursue any legal action they would have to figure out who you are which can be very difficult to do if you are following precautions such as using different emails for every account and using a vpn. 

 

TL;DR: Do what you want it is unlikely the companies will care, unless you live in Europe in which article XIII clamps down on this I believe.

[KoolHndLuke]

28 minutes ago, Strawman said:

unless you live in Europe in which article XIII clamps down on this I believe.

Yeah, with the current trend leaning toward more broad application of copyright to stop Youtube and the like, it seems now is a good time to discuss the ins and outs of it since it might come state-side as well. This "grey area" isn't really going to cut it when they can ignore something for ten years and then come out of the blue to press charges or something (unless there are limitations). I mean lets face it, the internet has changed the boundaries and scope for everything that copyright might cover. There is no way they can police the entire worldwide web.

 

Taking someone's personal/free stuff is just shit imo. But, using popular images, artwork, themes should be permissible since those artists are already making a shitton of money. It's more like when it is uploaded to the net, it is already public domain to an extent cause you can't control where your stuff might end up. China for instance, does not give a damn about copyright laws cause it' would be impossible to enforce in their country I think.

 

Besides, making every site responsible for what might be copyright infringement is just a way of weeding out the little sites that can't afford that kind of headache. People on the net abide by copyright laws more as a courtesy than out of any fear of being caught and fined. So the harder those artists and any officials push the bounds of copyright, the more people on the net are going to think "fuck you" and do what they want.

[Strawman]

The main issue with article thirteen is the removal of internet anonymity as you have to sign in with your credit card. If you are living in the us you should be fine with a vpn and using a different email, the way the people get you is by checking multiple renentries for example using the same email for multiple accounts or having the same ip connect to multiple unencrypted connections. 

 

In your case I highly doubt that a mod would warrant the time and resources to file a legal dispute, but we do live in clown world so I guess anything is possible.

 

IMHO- All ip's should become be available in the public domain after 20yrs, the laws used to be similar to this back in the early 1900s but then Disney came along and lobbied congress to protect mickey mouse and their other ips which they themselves stole from popular folktales anyway. 

[Kendo 2]

3 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I always wanted to try and put some classic cars in FO4 like a Camaro or a Mustang for props, but I'm not sure if that's all legally and stuff. What are some instances where you might be violating copyright? I mean, how close does it have to be to the original to be infringement (stealing)? It's not that I want to steal anything because the way I see it, they are either more like cultural icons or you are giving them free advertising. What do you think?

It's not an infringement unless the cars in your mod can be used as cars in real life AND they interfere with Chevy/Ford profits, and they cause product confusion to purchasers.  Chevy/Ford would have to prove the cars in your mod can be mistaken for real world Camaros/Mustangs and they would have to prove your mod is damaging their sales.  None of that is going to happen.

 

Here's a Mustang for DAZ.  Look at it.  It's a fucking Mustang GT.  Anyone who knows wheels knows what it is.  Here's a Humvee.  It's obvious what the vehicle is just from looking at it.  Those 3d models don't constitute infringement.  Dork0ne and his fucktard staff over at Nexus are the ones who propagated the myth that using real world products in a game is somehow illegal.  They're morons.  As long as you don't use a trademarked name and try to sell the mod you're safe; can't profit from the Chevy/Ford reputation or trademark.

[DoctaSax]

Yeah, trademark is what I thought of too instead of copy. I wager even with the logo the chance of running into trouble with it is minimal, but then, it's just a logo, isn't it, no need to increase the risk for something like that. A lot of games out there base their cars on real models, but just give them a random name. GTA etc. If they can get away with it, there shouldn't be an issue.

[KoolHndLuke]

1 hour ago, Kendo 2 said:

It's not an infringement unless the cars in your mod can be used as cars in real life AND they interfere with Chevy/Ford profits, and they cause product confusion to purchasers.  Chevy/Ford would have to prove the cars in your mod can be mistaken for real world Camaros/Mustangs and they would have to prove your mod is damaging their sales.  None of that is going to happen.

 

Here's a Mustang for DAZ.  Look at it.  It's a fucking Mustang GT.  Anyone who knows wheels knows what it is.  Here's a Humvee.  It's obvious what the vehicle is just from looking at it.  Those 3d models don't constitute infringement.  Dork0ne and his fucktard staff over at Nexus are the ones who propagated the myth that using real world products in a game is somehow illegal.  They're morons.  As long as you don't use a trademarked name and try to sell the mod you're safe; can't profit from the Chevy/Ford reputation or trademark.

To be honest, they should be paying modders for the advertising they're doing for them instead of the modders worrying about some bs copyright law or something. Like the reason I want to buy a 350z is because of driving one in a game. The reason I wanted to buy an album from St. Vincent is because of a youtube vid I saw.  Etc, etc. But somehow they turn shit around saying that their IP is protected and they want royalties. Doesn't make sense. I mean companies contract advertising agencies all the time. What's different about their products being shown in a game?

[Dakuryon]

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

To be honest, they should be paying modders for the advertising they're doing for them instead of the modders worrying about some bs copyright law or something. Like the reason I want to buy a 350z is because of driving one in a game. The reason I wanted to buy an album from St. Vincent is because of a youtube vid I saw.  Etc, etc. But somehow they turn shit around saying that their IP is protected and they want royalties. Doesn't make sense. I mean companies contract advertising agencies all the time. What's different about their products being shown in a game?

My thoughts exactly! You're actually doing those companies a favor. I say go for it!~

[V The Heretic]

Alright. What is and what isn't. You really have to dig into what a company allows and what they don't.

Video Games: Most companies when it comes to video games wise, you can release content all day long because it's free fair use assets as long as their are not assets being released in payed content. (Content you use to market and net income off of it, even if it's $1).
Some game companies do not allow the use of their assets, but most do as it gains them popularity.

Car companies: This one gets a bit tricky. And the reason why is because of how patents and etc work when it comes to copyright. Now, if you hand make the model, or even a game model someone publicly releases as a model resource, I wouldn't go as far to say anything will happen to you if you even release it for public use under the "free" content.

Here is the no go. General Motor's Company can nail you for copyright if they find out you are selling content and it's not "free". Why? Because of technicalities. You are marketing their "logo" in which because they own that logo, you are marketing off them. Which goes into a different realm.

Long story short, public release of the mod under free standards, you'll be fine. Even if they were to see it, they would see it as "free" advertisement vs. someone profiting from their "assets". So I say you are good to go.

Edit: Why do you think most game companies don't use the same logo or variant of real model cars? Because they don't have "permission" to sell a game with the car companies "content." Plus they'd have to pay royalties out the ass just to do it, it's a waste of time.

[Lexi SubZero]

Honestly I don't see a reason why this should be any different from all the weapon mods modeled and named after existing real life guns. Afaik H&K, Colt etc haven't been taking down mods en masse.

My common sense says...If you don't intend to sell the mods, "fair use" should apply.

[KoolHndLuke]

The more I think about this, the more I think that games are a medium like television, or radio, or movies. And with the latter three, companies pay for air time or for showing their product. Television is dying. Movies and radio are in decline. The internet is where it's at now and games have become big, big business! Yet, of the four I mention, games are the only ones where companies don't have to pay a dime for advertising. It's because they have kept games in the "it's for kids" mindset of those stupid company execs that don't know shit about the changing market demographics.

 

And why wouldn't they think that? The longer they can maintain this fallacy; the longer they can treat games and gamers like some kind of red headed step child- a minority to be slightly ridiculed for being immature slackers that don't get the "real" world or something. It works for them beautifully, so they will never change it. Meanwhile, we gamers and modders have to worry all the time about whether something we do might be in violation of something. Does anyone else see what's going on here?

 

Why aren't games and gamers getting any respect in the corporate world? Why aren't they paying for advertising in games like every other medium like they do for Youtube, or other places? Because no one in the gaming industry HAS CALLED THEM ON THEIR BULLSHIT!!!!

[RW311]

You can call them and ask, or write a letter if you want some kind of evidence of your intent in case of legal concerns. It seems unlikely in this case but I find if you just ask these big companies before you do something with their brand the reaction is almost always positive.

[RitualClarity]

On 7/15/2019 at 11:45 PM, DoctaSax said:

Yeah, trademark is what I thought of too instead of copy. I wager even with the logo the chance of running into trouble with it is minimal, but then, it's just a logo, isn't it, no need to increase the risk for something like that. A lot of games out there base their cars on real models, but just give them a random name. GTA etc. If they can get away with it, there shouldn't be an issue.

there was a early game.. don't remember it currently where you drive etc.

Anyway it was clearly a Lambo and even had the logo/whatever you call it on the trunk.. .

That company got in trouble. Originally (if I recall correctly) the company (lambo) wanted the entire car.. they didn't get it. however, the "trademark" on the trunk did pass and had to be removed. The game (original version) had to be removed from market until all trademark materials were removed. 

 

 

[RitualClarity]

On 7/15/2019 at 7:01 PM, KoolHndLuke said:

I always wanted to try and put some classic cars in FO4 like a Camaro or a Mustang for props, but I'm not sure if that's all legally and stuff. What are some instances where you might be violating copyright? I mean, how close does it have to be to the original to be infringement (stealing)? It's not that I want to steal anything because the way I see it, they are either more like cultural icons or you are giving them free advertising. What do you think?

I'd make it slightly different. different tailight or something etc. Then alter the manufacture name and car name

 

for example for Mustang.. change it to "Colt"  In fact, look at it like a challenge. Make it really close so that people can recognize it .. but unique enough that you aren't using their trademarks and just enough difference to be comfortable that you aren't doing anything copy rite issues. (seriously doubt any issues will arise on that front. It is a fan based mod not a game, not a corporate entity etc)

 

worst case occurrence would be a letter from a lawyer telling you to change x, y, or z.

[MadMansGun]

back in the day we* modded cars, aircraft and guns into video games all the time: Need for Speed, GTA 3/VC/SA, Microsoft flight sim, others that i can't remember the names of, and i never heard about any legal actions being taken on anyone.

*well in my case it was mostly just downloading and installing mods that other people made, i could not make fuck all back then.

 

 

......but music on the other hand.

[Fotogen]

Its about who made it, who owns it. And about if "permission was granted".

 

If you made, lets say 3D model of a car and post it somewhere and said "go download it, its free and give me +1 if you like it", its OK.

Can't upload it somewhere else though. Author said "download" and "free", not "upload".

 

Permission must be granted.

 

So models for cars and planes and guns and stuff is OK. Well if you own it. Or permission was granted.

 

Some The same goes for music. You made it? Was permission granted?

 

Edit:

English not my native language.

 

[ZenBuddhist]

48 minutes ago, Fotogen said:

Some goes for music. You made it? Was permission granted?

it goes for sound fx and voice acting — original and localised — as well, Fotogen. and not only "some."

cheers.

[Fotogen]

36 minutes ago, ZenBuddhist said:

it goes for sound fx and voice acting — original and localised — as well, Fotogen. and not only "some."

cheers.

English is not my native language. More correct would be "The same goes for ... "?

 

 

[landess]

You can drive past a police officer doing 100 in a 35.... it's up to them whether they want to take action. It's about the same with copyright/trademark, etc. While concepts like profit and such have been discussed, I believe 'use' might play a part as well.

 

I look at my Sims 3 and KNOW there are those at EA whom would disprove of my install as I have it. Wouldn't surprise me if games in general become harder if even possible to mod in the future. A mod of a Mercedes Benz in my game probably wouldn't raise eyebrows, but add a mod which shows sims sexing it up in that car, and the situation becomes a bit more tenuous.

 

Like mentioned above, legal action is costly, so there must be something to be gained by pursuing court action. Sometimes it might just be drama between two parties since one has the 'high ground'. Anything ever designed is a form of intellectual property, and I'm glad I don't have to be one of those responsible for drawing the lines between originality and plagiarism.