Is this article AI generated? It's absolutely awful. Ending with youtube-style engagement bait is just embarrassing, you're the journalist, you should be the one to reach out to a lawyer and get an opinion.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
46 points (65.3% liked)
Games
16371 readers
976 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Please like, share, and subscribe! Every little bit helps!"
🤢
Idk I'd like to at least think AI can spell "grand theft auto" correctly unlike how they spelled it in the article.
Either bad AI or just a bad writer with no proofreading.
I don't really know what the Florida Joker did other than look horrible, but I kind of agree that Rockstar took his likeness to the benefit of their game. He should be compensated.
I'd be pretty upset too if someone used my likeness in a game and applied it to some fucked up scenario.
And it’s funny how it doesn’t apply both ways. Go make a parody of one of Rockstars IP and see how fast you get cease and desist.
It's almost like the law doesn't protect equally
Something something "it's just as illegal for the rich man to sleep under a bridge as it is for the poor man to sleep under a bridge."
The law does. Lawyers don't.
The real issue isn't an actual cease and desist, but DMCA takedown. I hate almost everything about the DMCA and think it should be repealed. W/o the DMCA, fair use would be a lot more favorable to smaller content creators.
Unless it’s posted somewhere dmca doesn’t apply is my understanding, but if RS finds out about your fan project, that’s what cease and desists are for. Stop working on it, and if you don’t you’re screwed. You couldn’t even “leak” it at that point.
Cease and desist is the far worse one to receive was my understanding.
Sure. But a cease and desist requires a lawsuit, DMCA just requires filling out a form, so the burden of proof is much lower. That's my point.
RS may be able to win even sketchy cease and desist suits, but that costs them money, so they're less likely to bother unless you get really popular.
A cease and desist is literally a letter. The court is not involved in any way.
A DMCA claim only applies to copyright infringement, not any other illegal use of IP, and you can counter claim with just as little work if your usage is legitimate and force them to actually go to court to be able to require to website to remove it.
Yes, a cease and desist is just a letter with no legal obligation whatsoever. I could send one to Rockstar today. The interesting part is the threat of legal action, so I wouldn't send one unless I had a solid case. The letter itself isn't interesting, the judge's order during or after the ensuing legal battle is.
And yes, a DMCA should only apply to copyright infringement, but there's no legal obligation to actually prove that in court before sending the request. Since the request is sent to the hosting service (e g. YouTube or GitHub) instead of the creator of the content, the content is often taken down before the creator even hears about the request. It is not in the hosting service's interests to fight such claims, nor look much more closely than to verify that the sender seems like they likely own the allegedly infringing content.
If you host your own content, yes, you're responsible for whether you take it down before being legally obligated to. Most people use a popular hosting service, especially for something like a video where any form of popularity will likely overwhelm their hosting. That's why people use services like YouTube, they don't want to deal with scaling if demand takes off.
The threat of legal action is the same with or without a formal letter. It's 5 minutes of a lawyer's time. The barrier is zero. Anyone can send one for any reason with no cause.
The hosting provider is not obligated to investigate or defend against DMCA claims. If they receive a valid counter claim, they are permitted to host it again until actual legal action is initiated, in a courtroom. They don't receive them for the exact same reason people don't respond The barrier of a DMCA takedown after the trivial counter claim is much higher than a cease and desist.
The hosting provider is free to ignore counterclaims as well, and they frequently do. So I'm practice, the DMCA is much more effective than a cease and desist when it comes to major content hosts.
Things rarely get to an actual, legally compelled takedown because content hosts so often voluntarily take down content even when there's a valid counterclaim.
Nobody is using DMCA requests on YouTube, your biggest example. YouTube has an easier process entirely unrelated to the DMCA.
Right, and that exists as a direct reaction to the DMCA. YouTube didn't want to deal with the legal process of a DMCA takedown, so they provided a process to shortcut that. Unless I'm mistaken, without the DMCA, lawyers would need to go after content creators, not hosts, to get infringing content removed, so YouTube would not feel the need to automate the process as it has.
That's what I mean about the DMCA essentially causing this setup. It's the same idea as a cease and desist scaring people into complying even when they're within the bounds of fair use, except the host has little if any reason to resist spurious claims. If lawyers can go after hosts, hosts will protect themselves to avoid legal fights.
Without the DMCA safe harbor provision, they'd be directly liable for content uploaded by users. Taking stuff down wouldn't protect them.
I don't think that's true, the law generally doesn't apply if you unknowingly are in possession of Illegal goods. So it would need to be proven that the host knew it was illegal.
Do you have evidence that a host was successfully held legally liable for unknowingly hosting illegal/unlicensed content? The Napster case is the closest I know of (post DMCA though), and that centered on whether they knew about the infringing content, as well as whether they promptly removed infringing content once they knew about it. This is certainly related to safe harbor provisions, but I'm interested to know of any examples before the DMCA was in place, because I have my doubts that they're truly necessary. To me it sounds like a way to hand even more control to copyright holders since they merely need to send a notice-and-takedown request instead of actually proving anything (at least that's my reading of Section 512 of Title 17).
That said, they're are better ways to handle it imo. For example, strengthening rights and responsibilities of individuals over submitted content could force hosts to explicitly partner with them to profit from it, which means they'll share liability and thus be expected to put more effort into verifying legality.
No a cease and desist doesn’t require a lawsuit, where does that apply? You have your lawyer draft a letter and if they ignore it, than you have to go to court and deal with it, but these aren’t used frivolously like DMCAs so they are usually followed.
You can’t DMCA something that isn’t copyright infringement, if you’re hosting it yourself, a DMCA doesn’t even really apply to you either. It’s for third party hosters. And you still need proof regardless, you can’t just dmca stuff and not follow through with proof and enforcement.
Your point is inherently flawed it seems.
It’s for third party hosters. And you still need proof regardless, you can’t just dmca stuff and not follow through with proof and enforcement.
Most content is hosted via a third party, and the more popular third parties (e.g. YouTube) don't seem to check the proof, they just take it down.
The cease and desist requires a judge, so it needs to actually have proof, so the barrier is much higher.
If you self-host, sure, but very few people actually do that, especially for something like a parody where reaching a broad audience is the entire point.
You can get a judge to order and injunction for a cease and desist which make it’s legally binding, but it’s not the only method available.
I can send you a cease and desist to stop commenting on my comments, if you don’t I would either than take you to court, or drop it.
A dmca means nothing to the person who did the copyright infringement, great I can’t put the video on YouTube, on to the next one… how inconvenient and obstructive to their work.
You realize you’re on the fediverse where anyone can Self host instances… yeah?
You realize you’re on the fediverse where anyone can Self host instances… yeah?
Sure, but how many actually do? And how likely is RS to find out that someone posted something on the Fediverse? I know we all like it, but it's still a very small community and probably not worth their time.
People tend to post stuff to YouTube and then link to it from Reddit, Lemmy, etc, and that's where the DMCA gets involved. How is RS going to send a cease and desist to me when I'm using an anonymous account? I don't even have my email configured w/ Lemmy. If I hosted my own instance, I suppose they could send it through my DNS registrar and/or hosting provider, but I'm guessing they'd go the DMCA route on Lemmy or Reddit just like they would with YouTube.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Parody is protected. There have been a few made.
How many fan/parody games have made it to light instead of being C&D’d?
Parody is protected, but not when you have vastly more expensive lawyers who will bully you into compliance.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Different face, different tattoos. Sure, it's definitely inspired by him but looks legally distinct.
With GTAV, Kate Upton also sued for her likeness being taken for one of the loading screens. I don't recall how that one ended.
Looked it up, apparently Lindsay Lohan sued them and lost. The image is without a doubt Kate Uptons face traced over a real life photo though from what I just saw, but she herself hasn't tried to sue them..
It was Lindsey Lohan who sued
https://www.unilad.com/celebrity/news/lindsay-lohan-grand-theft-auto-five-lawsuit-110273-20230907
He just realised that's the only way he can make money off a terrible decision.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Rockstar just stole Florida’s likeness and made it a game. Congratulations on trying but failing being creative or edgy. Feels like Rockstar has hit their 40’s.
How’s that different from they always did? Isn’t Vice City based on Miami, 4 based in NYC, and 5 on LA? They’ve always just taken the likeness of a city in America and called it a game.
view more: next ›