The creator of the Cyberpunk 2077 VR mod CD Projekt recently hit with a DMCA strike has paused his Patreon page and pulled access to all his mods after receiving another strike from a different publisher.
Looks like the Ghostrunner developers also have an issue with paid mods running off their IP.
Your argument is that his work relies on the work of others. But many people’s jobs rely on others, with or without their consent. Someone who works at a travel agency relies on nice destinations existing to send people to. Tour guides don’t need consent from an architect to stop and point outside their building.
Note that people will still need to buy the game to play the mod.
It would be like the architect who drew the plans for your home getting a court order to seize your home because you installed extra cabinets that were not on his plans.
Architectural copyright (Architektenurheberrecht) protects an architect’s original intellectual and creative achievements, including designs, plans, and completed buildings, provided they possess a sufficient level of originality (Schöpfungshöhe).
Architects can, and have, use this to deny changes to such buildings or claim injunctive relief, removal of the infringement, or financial damages.
Installing extra cabinets would most likely not be enough to seize the house, but if he can convince a judge that it will sufficient change his art he could get a order to have them removed and the original space restored again.
Not sure if this is germany only, but it shows that every bullshit is possible when it comes to laws.
They don’t say anything against applying or installing the mod to the game, at least not in this case, but against making money with their IP.
This should not be mixed together.
Let’s be clear: 3rd party mods do not in general contain 1st party IP. So no, I reject the idea that the modder was making money “with” their IP, unless there’s something I don’t know about this mod specifically. This is a perfectly legal and morally clear niche, and the game devs are overreaching.
For instance, the creators of phone cases don’t need permission from the creators of the phone. I also have 3rd party controllers for my switch, 3rd party game cartridge holders. I fixed my phone using an iFixit kit (3rd party). In none of these instances were the third party required to get 1st party approval.
All your examples are physical objects that are owned and physically manipulated or extended, not software that is not owned but always only licensed (yes, even when you buy a physical medium, the software is only licensed), and subject of very complex trademark, copyright and intelectual property laws.
Its like saying I can safe look directly at the moon that means i can safe look directly at the sun because both looking like lights in the sky.
You can and should not, and things that look a lot like each other don’t have to follow the same rules.
Oh and try to fix your physical John Deer tractor with anything not bought from John Deer (and even that is only possible to do in the US since 2023) you will very soon see the limits of 3rd party.
Btw the creators of phone cases and controllers and such need the permission when they use the trademarks and registered names owned buy other companies. You may be allowed to create unofficial accesoirs but you have no right to the trademarks to put them on your product or in your advertisements.
Granted, DRMs and the DMCA complicate things legally. Not morally though. Retro games don’t have licences though, and courts have ruled that the copy protection systems on those consoles are generally insufficient to count for legal purposes. do you oppose paid romhacks too?
Your argument is that his work relies on the work of others. But many people’s jobs rely on others, with or without their consent. Someone who works at a travel agency relies on nice destinations existing to send people to. Tour guides don’t need consent from an architect to stop and point outside their building.
Note that people will still need to buy the game to play the mod.
They do need permission from the building owner to bring people inside to look at it though. And that usually involves paying them.
Yes but in this context, the building owner is the person who bought the game.
It would be like the architect who drew the plans for your home getting a court order to seize your home because you installed extra cabinets that were not on his plans.
In germany we have the “Architektenurheberrecht”.
Architectural copyright (Architektenurheberrecht) protects an architect’s original intellectual and creative achievements, including designs, plans, and completed buildings, provided they possess a sufficient level of originality (Schöpfungshöhe).
Architects can, and have, use this to deny changes to such buildings or claim injunctive relief, removal of the infringement, or financial damages.
Installing extra cabinets would most likely not be enough to seize the house, but if he can convince a judge that it will sufficient change his art he could get a order to have them removed and the original space restored again.
Not sure if this is germany only, but it shows that every bullshit is possible when it comes to laws.
I’m surprised and also not really.
It’s exactly the same line of thinking where someone else is given more rights over a thing than the person who owns it.
If you want to fully own it then put a exclusive and unlimited license agreement into the contract with your architect.
That’s what ‘own’ means.
Yeah exactly. It’s crazy that people think it’s OK for game developers to have a say in what mods you can apply to your own legally purchased game.
They don’t say anything against applying or installing the mod to the game, at least not in this case, but against making money with their IP. This should not be mixed together.
Let’s be clear: 3rd party mods do not in general contain 1st party IP. So no, I reject the idea that the modder was making money “with” their IP, unless there’s something I don’t know about this mod specifically. This is a perfectly legal and morally clear niche, and the game devs are overreaching.
For instance, the creators of phone cases don’t need permission from the creators of the phone. I also have 3rd party controllers for my switch, 3rd party game cartridge holders. I fixed my phone using an iFixit kit (3rd party). In none of these instances were the third party required to get 1st party approval.
All your examples are physical objects that are owned and physically manipulated or extended, not software that is not owned but always only licensed (yes, even when you buy a physical medium, the software is only licensed), and subject of very complex trademark, copyright and intelectual property laws. Its like saying I can safe look directly at the moon that means i can safe look directly at the sun because both looking like lights in the sky. You can and should not, and things that look a lot like each other don’t have to follow the same rules.
Oh and try to fix your physical John Deer tractor with anything not bought from John Deer (and even that is only possible to do in the US since 2023) you will very soon see the limits of 3rd party.
Btw the creators of phone cases and controllers and such need the permission when they use the trademarks and registered names owned buy other companies. You may be allowed to create unofficial accesoirs but you have no right to the trademarks to put them on your product or in your advertisements.
Granted, DRMs and the DMCA complicate things legally. Not morally though. Retro games don’t have licences though, and courts have ruled that the copy protection systems on those consoles are generally insufficient to count for legal purposes. do you oppose paid romhacks too?
It’s making money with their labor. Work is valuable, and deserves pay no matter what