231
Cyberpunk 2077 VR Modder Hit by Another DMCA Strike, Pauses Patreon, Pulls Access to All His Mods, and Declares He's 'Under Attack' (www.ign.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Looks like the Ghostrunner developers also have an issue with paid mods running off their IP.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

He kind of does, doesn't he? His software supports 40+ games, it's not just Cyberpunk. There's no Cyberpunk content in his mod, it's just software that manipulates other software. It seems insane that people are supporting this as a legit DMCA takedown, and that the response has been to pirate his software like that is somehow now justified by him allegedly violating CDPR IP. I don't get it at all. If he was distributing a modified version of their game that would be one thing but it's software that allows users to modify a variety of different games they have a license for, which is obviously something else entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    He did violate their IP, just not with the mod itself but the advertising / his posts - at least in my uneducated opinion.

    Take these examples:

    https://archive.is/xKCtk https://archive.is/bfg53

    He's using their IP to advertise his commercial product - a paid mod that supports their game. This use of IP generally isn't considered fair use. It's not the fact that it supports the game that's a violation, it was the advertising that was more my point.

    And then as DMCAs generally go, companies overreact (like Patreon) and overreach. I don't think CD Project Red could reasonably have done anything if all this was was a footnote that his mod supports CP2077 and the advertising was happening via content creators plugging it - or otherwise off Patreon. But because he happens to use their IP to advertise directly, this was the outcome.

    I'm not a lawyer though, there is probably more at play here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    I can't load those links so I'm not sure what you are referring to but broadly speaking, I don't see the issue with using a trademark in the context of advertising that your product is compatible with another product. It's not fundamentally different than an advertisement for an iPhone case using Apple trademarks to convey that it's a compatible product when it's not made by Apple. Additionally, this seems incorrect because from everything I have seen they specifically refer to the software as being in violation of their IP. I haven't seen anything where they suggest his use of their trademarks in advertising is the issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent