ModNation Racers Online Discussion

[fuzzyclutter]

im reading "works" in the law . and although the dang thing reads like ancient egypt hyraglyphrics , i did catch "parody " , which reminded me of Mad Magazine Which quite often reduplicates near likeness's of copyrighted matierial .

and i might add that these are not images , or graphics copied directly from any copyrighted matierial , in their current state they are primitives (which cannot be copyrighted ) . yeah ... UFG is a young developer , however theirs another entity involved .. SONY . hardly a newbie to copyright law , i could see it being a problem had any of these mods contained within them any copy protected source matierial (as they are , they are nothing but collections of primitives, or were being sold . but I'm certain sony did their homework.... cause they certainly protect their own stuff like a crackhead protects his stash ..LOL

[Wade_VC]

---

fuzzyclutter wrote:
im reading "works" in the law . and although the dang thing reads like ancient egypt hyraglyphrics , i did catch "parody " , which reminded me of Mad Magazine Which quite often reduplicates near likeness's of copyrighted matierial .

---

Yes, and one of Mad Magazines best known artists, Don Martin, has said several times in many interviews that there were so many ideas and sketches that could not be used becasue they could not secure permission to use the likenesses of others so portrayed in the strips.

---

fuzzyclutter wrote:

and i might add that these are not images , or graphics copied directly from any copyrighted matierial , in their current state they are primitives (which cannot be copyrighted ) . yeah ... UFG is a young developer , however theirs another entity involved .. SONY . hardly a newbie to copyright law , i could see it being a problem had any of these mods contained within them any copy protected source matierial (as they are , they are nothing but collections of primitives, or were being sold . but I'm certain sony did their homework.... cause they certainly protect their own stuff like a crackhead protects his stash ..LOL

---

It does not matter WHAT you use. You can call them "primitives" or whatever else, the END result is a replicated likness of a copyrighted work.

"As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner". - USCA, Chapter 1

A few other legal, industry and gaming sites are taking note as well:

** "What ModNation Racers brings to the genre is loading screens and rampant copyright infringement."

** "My only fear about ModNation Racers is that copyright will soon prevail and Sony will go in and remove a lot of the copyrighted materials created by its users from the game's online network. ModNation provides a good mix of madcap weapon-based racing action with actual depth, and the sort of gleeful large-scale copyright infringement that only user-generated content can provide. As long as Sony's legal department doesn't get involved"

** It's not clear how the developers at United Front Games and Sony are planning to deal with copyright infringing user created content (judging by the Little Big Planet example, everything that is questionable might disappear)

** Once again, the toolset is simple but the flexibility is remarkable. Just take a look at some of the user created content, I bet you never thought you would see Link or Snake appearing in ModNation Racers, yet here they are.
It’s a copyright infringement wonderland!

[fuzzyclutter]

that is true but copyright infringement is not all inclusive . and one has to consider the state of the designs at the technological level . but first ...

1309. Infringement

(e) Infringing Article Defined. — As used in this section, an “infringing article” is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design. An infringing article is not an illustration or picture of a protected design in an advertisement, book, periodical, newspaper, photograph, broadcast, motion picture, or similar medium. A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

lets take the many spiderman mods out there . although they do have simularities they are very different , as spiderrman is not is not a short person with a fat head .... (unless danny divito plays the next spider man ... lol ) . Now at the technological level these things do not exist as images , but as instruction files telling your copy of the game how to arrange stickers and props ,both of which still exist as independent entities and are not dependent on the existance of the rest of the mod . It is not enough just for a pure visual of a graphic that constitutes infringment as described here

113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works 47

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106, includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.(b) This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.

I think theres more than enough evidence to find the exempt ... because they really arent much more than electronic doodling , dont even exist as ia singular image at the software level , for the most part , all mods in question have substancial differences , and the simularities themselves are not permanent fixtures at the software level . also some of these fixtures are being used outside of intended use . the eyelids on my mr schnoogums ? are actually two beeks . sooooo is mr schnoogums a monkey ... or some freak with beaks for eyelids ? Now at the philisophical level ... i dont condone anybody stealing copyrighted work , however ... i can understand why this exclusive right does have limitations , and should for the preservation of a free democracy , think about it ... lliving in a country where the simple utterance of a product name could land you in court . it would be oppression through civil means , corporate tyranny through fear of court action .

[fuzzyclutter]

oops i forgot to add "as of yet " to dont seem to violate . but it would make for an interesting court battle , given the unique manner with which these mods are created and stored .

[Wade_VC]

---

fuzzyclutter wrote:
 A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

---

Take special note of the phrase : if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

Similar in appearance is a very broad term used for additional protection of the copyright holder.

Yes, a short, fat Spiderman would apply as it would be recognized as what it is similar to; a copyrighted work.
Look up how many lawsuits Stan Lee and Marvel Comics Inc have filed against those who have used Spiderman (or similar likenesses) without consent.

Bottom line is, if you use, or create anything that is based from a copyright protected work, YES, it is indeed copyright infringement.

"U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process."

[fuzzyclutter]

yes but filing a lawsuit and winning a lawsuit are indeed two seperate creatures Carol burnett filed a lawsuit against Family Guy because they used an animation very similar to her own when she had her own show way back when , it was found that the matierial was highly similiar , but it had distinct differences as well and had no substancial economic impact on the original .

The Mods and Karts are copies , but legally do they constitute unlawful infringement ? The law contains much grey area especially concerning "fair use "and my searches around the internet have revealed a hodge podge of scholarly and legal views from both sides of the debate . but an even more important question is "how much money is SCEA and UFG willing to spend to defend a bunch of Mods and Karts with which it makes no money on ? The Little Big Planet Debacle indicates very little to none . makes sense... alot cheaper to ban a mod or kart , than it is to defend it .

So to sum up my personal view ... Do these Mods /karts constitute infringement ??? depends on who you ask . Could they be determined to be substantially different or within fair use ??? maybe .... Would they even get that far in the legal process or just be banned , because that route is cheapest and easiest ??? HIGHLY LIKELY .

[fuzzyclutter]

oops , just remember ... exclusive does not mean without limitation .