A statement made by CDPR regarding Keanu Reeves mod is concerning

[jj284b]

one thing - CDPR didnt tell anybody to take down the mod itself.. they asked mod creator to remove single file, that swaps the Johnny Silverhand for a Joytoy... it was mod creator who took his mod down on his own..

Main problem i see is the fact people like these days jumping on hate train way too quickly without actually investigating the situation..

 

[Endoftime55]

[...] There is nothing wrong in my opinion if you could have sex with silverhand. Why shouldn't you? It's on your pc modded from you . Well there is some similarity to Keanu ( I know it is him like copy paste to virtual reality) but it's still a game. Fictional Setting and characters

For you, it might not problem. But, this might hurt people. People intent add other models( maybe even real persons) for other people. Many people suicided for these little reasons. CDPR did the right thing. If they let it happen, we might know where to end. Please respect others' feelings.

 

[naxvxckwilzvqoepfz]

[...]
I mean, I undertand liking a product or a developer, but it's really getting frustrating.
Let's analyze the situation for a moment here:
- We have a developer who release an half finished game and lied about most of the game content and gameplay [and not, I'm not talking ONLY about the 48 minute gameplay]
- With some of the earlier patch they silently censor the game [and no statement were given]
- In the later patch they again silently change the loot drop mechanics
- They didn't address (as today) the most simpple fanbase requests [key to walk or dodge. How can be difficult? Right?]

And now, they are trying to censor also the modders who are fixing their game for FREE.
It's not for the mod itself, but it show the path they are seeking. They doens't care for the community.

 

[CS554]

No. Copyright applies to created works, not people. Disney negotiated with Carrie Fisher's estate for the right to use her likeness in Star Wars - which is a matter of personality rights and not a matter of copyright. Copyright law would apply to the digital and technological recreation of Carrie Fisher that was used in the SW film, which is a work and not a person. But the right to have that work portray Carrie Fisher's likeness is a matter of personality rights.

I agree to disagree (too lazy to look stuff up) but personal rights applies to Keanu Reeves likeness too, copyright would still apply to character Johnny Silverhand (created work) and people behind mod didn't had those rights.

 

[delicieuxz]

one thing - CDPR didnt tell anybody to take down the mod itself.. they asked mod creator to remove single file, that swaps the Johnny Silverhand for a Joytoy... it was mod creator who took his mod down on his own..

Main problem i see is the fact people like these days jumping on hate train way too quickly without actually investigating the situation..

Could you share a source for the claim that it was the mod creator who took down the mod?

But regarding investigating the situation, the OP is justified by CDPR's claim that they sought the removal of the mod based on a rule they claim to have concerning mods. The thread title says, "A statement made by CDPR regarding Keanu Reeves mod is concerning. And it is. Who directly took-down the mod doesn't change the statement that CDPR made and why it's concerning.

I agree to disagree (too lazy to look stuff up) but personal rights applies to Keanu Reeves likeness too, copyright would still apply to character Johnny Silverhand (created work) and people behind mod didn't had those rights.

Agree or not, a person's likeness isn't a matter of copyright in the US or elsewhere, but of personality rights. But a fictional character, like Princess Leia or Johnny Silverhand, is not a person - as you noted, they're created works.

Princess Leia in Star Wars is a character and so copyright applies to that character. Carrie Fisher is a person and personality rights apply to her likeness. Disney negotiated for the personality rights to use Fisher's likeness in Star Wars for the copyrighted Princess Leia character.

Johnny Silverhand is a created work and copyright applies to that character. But Keanu Reeves is a person and personality rights apply to his likeness. CDPR negotiated for the right to use Reeves' likeness in CP 2077.

A digital recreation of someone, such as Carrie Fisher in Star Wars, is also a copyrighted work independent of the character and person's likeness it portrays. But the copyright of that digital recreation applies to the digital recreation itself, which is a work, and not to the likeness of Carrie Fisher, even though the work appears like Carrie Fisher.

If a modder creates a model that looks like Keanu Reeves, that model would be their copyrighted work and not CDPR's or Keanu Reeves - but usage of his appearance wouldn't be permitted without the necessary right to use his likeness, except in Fair Use cases.

 

[CS554]

If a modder creates a model that looks like Keanu Reeves, that model would be their copyrighted work and not CDPR's or Keanu Reeves - but usage of his appearance wouldn't be permitted

For my understanding modder didn't create any models but used existing model and swapped animations. Even if modder create their own copy of Silverhand in game, that would be copyright violation, as likeness of copyrighted work (Silverhand) it tied to Silverhand. Like people can't copy logos and sell something else under said logos, Uncle Bens for example.

 

[Mario_Szabo]

For you, it might not problem. But, this might hurt people. People intent add other models( maybe even real persons) for other people. Many people suicided for these little reasons. CDPR did the right thing. If they let it happen, we might know where to end. Please respect others' feelings.

I understand if you are talking about mobbing or Cyber bullying, but I can't see a connection between this and having the possible via mod to have sex in pc with a virtual person. And as a mod on a private pc. I don't get it. Wouldn't it be enough to just disallow to make videos about a sex mod?

 

[delicieuxz]

For my understanding modder didn't create any models but used existing model and swapped animations. Even if modder create their own copy of Silverhand in game, that would be copyright violation, as likeness of copyrighted work (Silverhand) it tied to Silverhand. Like people can't copy logos and sell something else under said logos, Uncle Bens for example.

I was using the example of a modder creating a model and owning the copyright for the model they created even though the model appears as somebody else. However, I thought the modder in this case used a texture reskin on an existing model in CP 2077. But the texture the modder created, if they created the texture, would be their copyright work. And if they created a tool that took a texture from somewhere else and moved it to a different model, then they'd own the copyright for the tool they created.

In concept, anything a person makes has copyright automatically apply to it immediately upon its creation, and the copyright belongs to whoever made the work, or to whoever the person who made the work made it in the employ of.

 

[Nea.Schaefer]

if cdpr would have fullfilled their promises of one night stands, relationships and all that people would not need to find other ways to get diversity into this part of the game.

if they now want boni boni keanu thats the monster cdpr created themselfes.

no need to patronize the players for making this cut content bugfest somewhat enjoyable or funny in the meanwhile.

 

[Endoftime55]

, but I can't see a connection between this and having the possible via mod to have sex in pc with a virtual person.

If an adult did to herself/himself, I wouldn't care. Because this is her/his own choice.
But, if something about any +18 scene, it goes into +18 websites. When you search for this person, people may not want to be known these types of results.
(I hope that I express myself. I don't want to hurt anyone feelings)

 

[CS554]

I was using the example of a modder creating a model and owning the copyright for the model they created even though the model appears as somebody else. However, I thought the modder in this case used a texture reskin on an existing model in CP 2077. But the texture the modder created, if they created the texture, would be their copyright work. And if they created a tool that took a texture from somewhere else and moved it to a different model, then they'd own the copyright for the tool they created.

In concept, anything a person makes has copyright automatically apply to it immediately upon its creation, and the copyright belongs to whoever made the work, or to whoever the person who made the work made it in the employ of.

No, I don't believe this to be so.

Uncle Bens and similar works rule here. Whatever tool was possible created here, doesn't matter, they have rights to this tool, unless there's party or parties whom patents apply, but nothing created by that tool will automatically grant rights to use / distribute previously copyrighted material. People can use copy machine to make copies of Uncle Ben's but that doesn't give them rights to use Uncle Ben's.

 

[OuterSpaceDoggo]

Woah imagine people thinking that having the possibility of fucking with Johnny Silverhand is "fixing" the game while sex in this game is something like "less than 20 seconds of awkward animations and then nothing". The priorities!

 

[delicieuxz]

Even as far as EULAs go, which is a low bar to begin with, CDPR's EULA doesn't attempt to present itself as something legally enforceable. Even if ignoring for a moment that an EULA isn't a legal contract, CDPR's EULA doesn't seem to have one foot in legal reality - which is ultimately OK, I guess, given that EULAs aren't legal contracts even if they try to be.

But here are some interesting points about CDPR's EULA:

- it claims CDPR can revoke a game license, which would instantly mean the EULA is non-binding because it depends upon what's called an Illusory Promise.


- it claims CDPR have some say over how people modify their game, which they simply don't because when something is sold to someone, the decision-making authority over that thing departs from the seller and transfers to the purchaser.


- it claims that people don't have a right to resell their software:

"This licence is for your personal use only (so you cannot give, ‘sell’, lend, gift, assign, sub-license or otherwise transfer it to someone else) and does not give you any ownership rights in Cyberpunk 2077."

Although I'm not a supporter of people being able to resell digital games without some system in place that ensures publishers get a solid cut, that claim is simply not true.

Here's what the law says: EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

BTW, have you seen the hundreds of used copies of CP2077 on eBay? Not to mention the used copies of every other game with an EULA that claims people can't resell it also available on eBay and elsewhere.


- it also claims that people don't have any ownership rights in Cyberpunk 2077:

"This licence is for your personal use only (so you cannot give, ‘sell’, lend, gift, assign, sub-license or otherwise transfer it to someone else) and does not give you any ownership rights in Cyberpunk 2077."

Now, that's true, providing the claim is only referring to the Cyberpunk 2077 IP, which is what I'm sure they're saying while being more ambiguous than they ought to be, and not the instances of the game that are obviously sold to people and which people certainly do own. CD Projekt even state on their own storefront that people own their purchased games - heck, it's GoG's motto and philosophy:

"You buy it, you own it"

 

[CS554]

I do believe that you keep bringing EULA to discussion, to avoid further discussion about copyright issue and issue with using of likeness of real life person, these are not a matter of EULA, it does inform customers about copyrights related to the game.

Uncle Ben's case still stands.

 

[Draedark]

[...]
I mean, I undertand liking a product or a developer, but it's really getting frustrating.
Let's analyze the situation for a moment here:
- We have a developer who release an half finished game and lied about most of the game content and gameplay [and not, I'm not talking ONLY about the 48 minute gameplay]
- With some of the earlier patch they silently censor the game [and no statement were given]
- In the later patch they again silently change the loot drop mechanics
- They didn't address (as today) the most simpple fanbase requests [key to walk or dodge. How can be difficult? Right?]

And now, they are trying to censor also the modders who are fixing their game for FREE.
It's not for the mod itself, but it show the path they are seeking. They doens't care for the community.

Source on where Johnny Silverhand as a JoyToy was a promised/hinted at/hyped feature. Also source on how Johnny Silverhand as a JoyToy "fixes" the game. Can you also elaborate on the path they are seeking? Please and thank you.

Cheers Chooms.

 

[delicieuxz]

I do believe that you keep bringing EULA to discussion, to avoid further discussion about copyright issue and issue with using of likeness of real life person, these are not a matter of EULA, it does inform customers about copyrights related to the game.

Uncle Ben's case still stands.

Then you are completely incorrect in that belief. There is no copyright aspect to using a real person's likeness. As I've said, that's a matter of personality rights. We already discussed this and it was yourself, not me, who avoided commenting on the topic further by saying "I agree to disagree (too lazy to look stuff up)".

I responded to that and pointed-out that whether you agree or not, using a person's likeness isn't a matter of copyright.

I never said that using a person's likeness is a matter of what's said in an EULA. I've said an EULA has no legal bearing on anything because an EULA isn't a legal contract. Obviously, what an EULA says is irrelevant if it isn't a legal document.

 

[Vincent_Rada]

I dont mod, i wont mod.
To me its an insult to the people that spent years making it.

"I made this mod that makes your game better because your work sucked"

Thanks guy...

 

[delicieuxz]

No, I don't believe this to be so.

Uncle Bens and similar works rule here. Whatever tool was possible created here, doesn't matter, they have rights to this tool, unless there's party or parties whom patents apply, but nothing created by that tool will automatically grant rights to use / distribute previously copyrighted material. People can use copy machine to make copies of Uncle Ben's but that doesn't give them rights to use Uncle Ben's.

I have a difficult time understanding what you're saying here. You haven't identified who "they" is (the tool-creator / modder, or the copyright-holder for the game the tool is used to mod?). I don't know why you're talking about a granting of rights to use something... I didn't say that making something with a tool grants a person a right to use another person's likeness. I actually said the opposite:

If a modder creates a model that looks like Keanu Reeves, that model would be their copyrighted work and not CDPR's or Keanu Reeves - but usage of his appearance wouldn't be permitted without the necessary right to use his likeness, except in Fair Use cases.

Edit: I think you're saying that making someone's likeness in a mod with a tool they created doesn't grant them permission to actually use the likeness of the person.

But I didn't say otherwise, and that's in-fact what I first said to you. So, I don't know why you think there's an issue there.

 

[Draedark]

Law, Science, EULA, Copywrites, Contracts, etc. aside.

Mature adults asked some other mature adults to remove specific content that was used in the game they created that they did not want to see out in the world. The other mature adults agreed and took the content down.

(the end)

 

[CS554]

Then you are completely incorrect in that belief. There is no copyright aspect to using a real person's likeness. As I've said, that's a matter of personality rights. We already discussed this and it was yourself, not me, who avoided commenting on the topic further by saying "I agree to disagree (too lazy to look stuff up)".

I responded to that and pointed-out that whether you agree or not, using a person's likeness isn't a matter of copyright.

I never said that using a person's likeness is a matter of what's said in an EULA. I've said an EULA has no legal bearing on anything because an EULA isn't a legal contract. Obviously, what an EULA says is irrelevant if it isn't a legal document.

No you actually dug your own grave with your deconstruction of Carrie Fisher / Disney case.

Likeness of Carrie Fisher (personal rights) is associated with copyrighted work (Princess Leia). Similar way character Ben (is/was real life person) is associated with Uncle Ben's.

Using likeness associated with copyright doesn't allow circumventing copyright. Copying or re-creating likeness of Ben doesn't allow anyone to distribute their own goods under said copy or re-creation.