Saints Row IV SR3 modding SDK resources legal issues?

Was this an online game? I believe that running your own music in a game would be covered under fair use, but if another player can hear the music you may need public performance permissions.
It was a game that had a MP mode. But a freeroam in both.
 
I find this extremely interesting. I know that in Bethesda games it's a big issue. They don't allow any content to be ported of any kind. Very interesting. I think before the SDK comes out DS Volition is gonna need to give us a detailed EULA on modding.

Volition's interactivity with the modding community since moving to Deep Silver is...legendary. Even Bethesda keeps it pretty official. Volition is going full tilt...maybe even willy-nilly. How it should be. Usually developers, even very pro mod developers, aren't this.....open. I hope this spreads to other developers.
 
It's not an issue regarding porting content, but rather content -distribution-. It's perfectly fine if you want to create a mod for an Elder Scrolls game that allows you to listen to copyrighted songs. Here's a particularly hilarious example:


The problem is that you cannot -distribute- the copyrighted song with the mod. The above mod comes with a mp3 that's been converted from a MIDI version of 'Miserlou':


The mod is clearly -meant- to be played with the actual song's audio, but due to legal issues the mod author cannot distribute it. If the mod contained the actual Dick Dale track Steam or Nexus or whatever mod distribution system it was on would be required to shut it down. If you use your own Miserlou mp3 with this mod for your own personal use however, no one can stop you.
 
If it's a public performance, it's still your responsibility to ensure you have the rights to do it, not the game's. If the content is being passed through a server run by the publisher, then they do have a legal responsibility. Most likely they would have a DMCA contact and would ban people for receiving complaints.
 
If it's a public performance, it's still your responsibility to ensure you have the rights to do it, not the game's. If the content is being passed through a server run by the publisher, then they do have a legal responsibility. Most likely they would have a DMCA contact and would ban people for receiving complaints.
If a serious offense was discovered, how would the owner or the copyrighted material proceed with pursuing legal action?

Would the server owner/host be a mediator, would they give the offender's information to the prosecuting attorney, or would a lawsuit be directed at them while they are required to take action against the offender in a separate case?
 
Basically the owner of the copyright would send a request to the site owner to have it removed. Just like YouTube. However, this rarely becomes an issue with content not related to games. For instance millions of you tube videos use music without permission, but it's not seen as worth the trouble to attempt to get the video removed. Especially when the person is making no financial gain from the use of the media and the actual circulation is limited. In the end there is no real course of action. Generally it's ignored, unless it is a massive distribution that financially damages the copyright owner there is no benefit to pursue legal action.
 
* It would be an issue if the mod was something like a full fledged port. For example, if someone ported Saints Row 2 with all the missions intact into the SRTT or SRIV engine, then there would be legal issues. But, if someone ported just Stilwater, the cars, and the gangs then that's something that's okay.

I wonder why is that. You'd think it wouldn't be an issue if you own both SR2 and SRTT and decided to port some missions, just like Marrowblivion, which as far as I'm concerned, Bethesda doesn't have a problem with.
 
I wonder why is that. You'd think it wouldn't be an issue if you own both SR2 and SRTT and decided to port some missions, just like Marrowblivion, which as far as I'm concerned, Bethesda doesn't have a problem with.

Bethesda shut marrowblivion down. They have a big problem with porting content from one game to another. Now, you can do what ever you want. You just can't post it online. It would then be piracy. Your giving someone the ability to play a game they didn't buy.
 
Bethesda shut marrowblivion down. They have a big problem with porting content from one game to another. Now, you can do what ever you want. You just can't post it online. It would then be piracy. Your giving someone the ability to play a game they didn't buy.

Mmm, but their page is still online. I mean, you could make it so you have to use assets from installed copies of both games to run the mod at all. It wouldn't be piracy because you'd need to have the two games installed to make the mod work.

Of course, this is a supposition/ suggestion, I really don't know if it could work this way.
 
Basically the owner of the copyright would send a request to the site owner to have it removed. Just like YouTube. However, this rarely becomes an issue with content not related to games. For instance millions of you tube videos use music without permission, but it's not seen as worth the trouble to attempt to get the video removed. Especially when the person is making no financial gain from the use of the media and the actual circulation is limited. In the end there is no real course of action. Generally it's ignored, unless it is a massive distribution that financially damages the copyright owner there is no benefit to pursue legal action.
Yes; there are 3 approaches that i can think of that differ slightly. To keep using YouTube as an example...

1) The owner (or representative) (or someone illegally posing as one of the two) can send an informal request to the host/middleman/service, which may or may not be honored. YouTube has special contracts with a lot of content companies to provide this service, which is why there's no effective appeal process for those. If a company decides it doesn't like your YouTube video, you're screwed.

2) If the middleman has posted a DMCA contact, the owner can file a proper DMCA complaint. The host is then obligated to block access to the content unless and until you file a counternotice, and i'm not sure where it goes from there. There's an appeal process, at least, so you may eventually get it restored. If the host has a DMCA contact, the owner may be obligated to go through the DMCA notice process instead of suing you directly; i'm not sure.

3) Finally, the owner can subpoena the host for your contact details, and then sue you for copyright infringement by public performance of their property. They can also sue the host if they don't qualify for DMCA protection.

Unfortunately, with game streams and videos becoming more widely known, the common practice of ignoring it may soon come to an end, especially where music rights owned by the music mafia comes into play, such as 80's rock and whatnot. I am fully prepared to rake any game publisher/developer who engages in that over the coals, however. For what it matters. I'm only one consumer who buys a lot of games.
 
Back
Top